mi 


THE  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 
IN  AMERICA 


THE 

RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 
IN  AMERICA 


a 


BY 

SANFORD  H.  COBB 


HERE  the  free  spirit  of  mankind,  at  length, 
Throws  its  last  fetters  off. 

— BKYANT 


gotfe 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON:    MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LTD. 
1902 

All  rights  reserved 


• 


COPYBIGHT,   1902, 

BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 
Set  up  and  electrotyped  April,  1902. 


J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass.  U.  S.  A. 


TO 

THE    COLONIAL    CLUB 

©f  ©ran*  &apfos,  Pltcfjt 


WITH    AN    AFFECTION    UNDIMINISHED 
BY   TIME   AND    DISTANCE 


M142108 


PREFACE 

THOUGH  the  title  of  this  work  suggests  a  topic  having  a 
religious  aspect,  yet  the  book  itself  offers  no  history  of  the 
churches  or  of  religion  in  America.  That  field  is  well  occu- 
pied by  such  works  as  those  of  Baird,  Dorchester,  Bacon, 
and  others,  and  by  denominational  histories.  The  aim  of 
the  present  work  is  political  rather  than  religious.  It 
attempts  a  systematic  narrative  —  so  far  as  the  author  is 
aware,  not  hitherto  published  —  of  that  historical  develop- 
ment through  which  the  civil  law  in  America  came  at  last, 
after  much  struggle,  to  the  decree  of  entire  liberty  of  con- 
science and  of  worship.  It  is  thus  purely  historical,  and 
confines  itself  rigidly  to  those  incidents  in  colonial  history 
which  are  closely  related  to  this  special  theme.  The  pur- 
pose is  to  exhibit  in  proper  historical  sequence  those  influ- 
ences and  events  which  guided  the  American  republics  to 
their  unique  solution  of  the  world-old  problem  of  Church 
and  State  —  a  solution  so  unique,  so  far-reaching,  and  so 
markedly  diverse  from  European  principles  as  to  constitute 
the  most  striking  contribution  of  America  to  the  science  of 
government. 

With  such  aim  and  for  the  double  purpose  of  correcting 
certain  popular  misconceptions  and  of  placing  plainly  before 
the  mind  the  complete  goal  of  this  historical  progress,  it 
has  seemed  desirable  to  define  in  the  first  chapter  the  ele- 
ments of  a  pure  religious  liberty,  as  that  principle  has 
embedded  itself  in  the  American  mind  and  law.  Besides, 
in  order  that  this  principle  and  its  development  might  be 
shown  in  true  historical  relations,  it  seemed  further  needful 
to  describe  in  the  second  chapter,  so  briefly  as  possible,  the 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

genesis  and  growth  of  the  "  Old  World  Idea  "  in  regard  to 
Church  and  State,  which  obtained  in  full  force  in  every 
European  government  at  the  time  of  American  colonization, 
with  which  the  American  liberty  stands  in  so  sharp  a  con- 
trast, and  from  the  bonds  of  which  the  story  will  show  the 
colonies  gradually  setting  themselves  free. 

As  to  works  cited,  it  is  proper  to  specially  note  that  the 
citations  from  Bancroft's  "  History  of  the  United  States " 
refer  to  the  23d  (8  vol.)  edition,  Boston,  1864 ;  also,  that  in 
the  sketch  of  the  "  Old  World  Idea,"  in  view  of  its  special 
place  in  this  treatise,  the  author  has  felt  at  liberty  to  depend 
largely  upon  the  very  acute  and  comprehensive  monograph, 
"  Church  and  State,"  by  A.  Innes  of  Edinburgh,  whose  page 
is  cited  in  every  instance  of  direct  quotation. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE 

PAGB 

Its  unique  character  —  American  law  —  Church  and  State  —  Definition 
of  the  principle  —  Strictly  an  American  idea  —  Growth  —  Roger 
Williams  —  Contents  of  liberty  —  Not  simply  freedom  of  conscience 

—  Dr.  Francis  Lieber  —  Spinoza  —  Liberty  not  toleration  —  Lord 
Stanhope  —  Paine  —  Relation  to  civil  law  —  Heresy  —  Interferences 
of  civil  law  —  In  Russia  —  In  England  —  Mutual  limitations  of 
Church  and    State  in  America  —  Independence  of   each   other  — 
Williams  quoted  —  William  Penn  —  Fostering  environment  of  colo- 
nial life  —  Points  of  distinction  —  Lieber  —  Kent  —  Rawle  —  Cooley        I 

II 
THE   OLD   WORLD  IDEA 

Church  and  State  in  Europe  —  A  problem  of  western  Christendom  —  A 
Christian  problem  —  The  Hebrew  theocracy  —  Pagan  conditions  — 
At  first  Christianity  religio  illicita  —  Spread  of  the  Church  —  Per- 
secution by  Diocletian  —  Toleration  of  Galerius  —  Constantine  — 
Edict  of  Milan  —  Proclamation  to  the  peoples  of  the  East  —  A  full 
Religious  Liberty  —  Repression  of  heathenism  by  sons  of  Constantine 

—  Christianity   established  by  law  —  Ambrose  —  Augustine  —  His 
maxim  —  Episcopal  power  —  The  Church  saves  society  —  Rome  — 
Epochs  of  development  —  Claims  of  the  Church  —  Gregory  the  Great 

—  Charlemagne  —  Subjection  of  the  Church  to  the  empire  —  Hilde- 
brand  —  Henry  IV.  —  Canossa  —  Investitures  —  Innocent  III.  — 
Church  supremacy  —  Frederic  II.  — Rise  of  nationalism  —  Boniface 
VIII.  — Edward  I.  — Philip  the  Fair  —  No  freedom  of  conscience  in 
nationalism  —  Protestantism  —  Lutheran  and  Reformed  —  Power  of 
princes —  Cujusregio,  ejus  religio  —  Conceded  by  Protestants — Peace 
of  Augsburg  —  Luther  —  Confession  of  Augsburg — Calvin — Helvetic 
Confessions  —  French  Confession — Zwinglius  —  Belgic  Confession  — 
Arminius  —  Church  of  England  —  Church  of  Scotland  —  Westmin- 
ster  Confession  —  Erastus  —  Grotius  —  Spinoza  —  Cartwright  — 

ix 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Hooker  —  Exceptions  to  supremacy  of  State  few  —  Cromwell  — 
Vane  —  Quakers  —  John  Locke  —  English  Toleration  Act  —  Burke 
—  Anabaptists  ...........  19 


COLONIAL  BEGINNINGS 

Most  of  the  colonies  "begun  under  dominance  of  the  European  principle 

—  Persecution  wrong  or  right  according  to  the  character  of  the  doc- 
trine —  Pilgrim  tolerance  —  Massachusetts  intolerance  —  John  Cot- 
ton —  Virginia    conformity  —  Three    systems  —  Four    groups    of 
colonies  —  Origin  of  colonial  establishments  —  Influence  of  English 
government        ...........      67 

CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS 
Established  by  charter  or  legislation  and  remaining  until  the  Revolution      74 

4 

1.    Virginia 

Religious  motive  in  foundation  of  colony  —  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  — 
Church  established  —  Robert  Hunt  —  Whitaker  —  Governor  Dale  — 
"Lawes  Divine,  Moral  and  Martial"  —  Argal  —  Wyatt  —  Virginia 
becomes  a  royal  province  —  Care  for  the  Church  —  Religious  legisla- 
tion —  Ministers  —  Lord  Baltimore  expelled  from  Virginia  —  Early 
toleration  —  Puritans  in  Virginia  —  Severer  measures  —  Romanists 

—  Sir  William  Berkeley  —  Boston  ministers  driven  away  —  Vestries 
and  patronage  —  The  period  of  the   commonwealth  —  Quakers  — 
The  Restoration  —  Stringent  laws  against  dissent  —  Scattered  settle- 
ment —  "Virginia's  Cure"  —  Clerical  morals  —  Schools  and  printing 

—  Francis  Mackemie  —  Toleration  Act  —  Huguenots  —  Persecutions 

—  Baptists  —  Other  sects  —  Methodists  —  Scotch  Presbyterians  — 
Whitefield  —  Samuel  Morris  —  Irregular  religious  services  —  Gov- 
ernor Gooch  —  Presbytery  of  Newcastle  —  Acts  of  repression  — 
Samuel  Davies  —  John  Rodgers  —  Forbidden  to  preach  —  Davies's 
triumphant  defence  —  Growing  disaffection  to  the  establishment  — 
Causes  of  it  —  "Disarming  Papists"  —  Two-Penny  Act  —  "Par- 
sons' Cause"  —  Patrick  Henry  —  Persecution  of  Baptists  —  Fall  of 

the  establishment       ..........      74 

2.    The  Carolinas 

Charter  —  Anglican  Church  established  —  Toleration  —  Religious  con- 
trol —  Dissenters  —  "  Fundamental  Constitutions  "  —  Atheists  ex- 
cluded —  Church  of  England  —  Rules  for  dissenting  churches  — 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xi 

PAGE 

Irreligion  outlawed  —  Religious  destitution  —  Anglican  immigration 

—  Plot  against  dissenters  —  First  clergyman  in  colony  —  Governor 
Archdale  —  Act  of  1704  —  Dissenters  disfranchised  —  A  lay  ecclesi- 
astical court  —  The  people  of  the  colony  —  Quakers  —  Act  of  1704 
annulled  —  Letters  of  the  clergy  —  Morals  of  the  clergy  — Few 
churches  —  Charter  abrogated  and  province  divided  —  Establish- 
ment only  nominal  in  North  Carolina  —  South  Carolina  church  laws 

—  Chapels  of  ease  —  Three-fourths  of  the  population  averse  to  the 
establishment     ...........     116 

V 
PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS 

All  New  England  outside  of  Rhode  Island  —  Congregationalism  —  Es- 
tablished by  colonial  legislation  —  Distinctions  among  the  colonies  .  133 

1.  Plymouth 

From  Scrooby  to  Holland  —  Attempts  to  emigrate  to  America  —  Lord 
Bacon — Plymouth  Company — Emigration  as  a  church  —  Mayflower 
Compact  —  Freedom  of  conscience  —  Freeman's  law  —  Tolerant 
spirit  —  Religious  legislation  — ' '  Presbyterian  Cabal ' '  —  Criticism 
by  Massachusetts  —  Quakers  —  Hubbard  —  Chauncy  —  Lechf ord  — 
Oldham  —  Doughty  —  Thomas  Morton  —  Governor  Bradford — Com- 
parative isolation  of  Plymouth  —  United  with  Massachusetts  .  .  133 

2.    Tlie  Massachusetts  Theocracy 

First  settlers  on  the  Bay  —  Coming  of  Endicott  —  Salem  —  Charter  to 
"Governor  and  Company  of  Massachusetts  Bay"  —  Religious  atti- 
tude of  the  Puritans  —  Endicott's  administration  —  Religious  aim  — 
"The  Planters'  Plea  "  —  "  Scottow's  Narrative  "  —  Company's  in- 
structions—  Organization  of  Church  at  Salem  —  Civil  power  over 
religion  —  Expulsion  of  the  Brownes — "New  England's  Planta- 
tion"— Emigration  of  1630  —  John  Winthrop  —  Dudley — Cotton's 
"Abstract  of  Laws  "  —  Tax  for  support  of  Church  —  Voluntary  sup- 
port in  Boston  —  Morton  of  Merry-Mount  —  Freemen  —  Franchise 
made  dependent  on  membership  in  State-Church  —  Reasons  for 
exclusiveness  —  Act  of  1635  completing  the  establishment  —  Inquisi- 
torial power  —  No  right  of  presentation  —  Origin  of  the  establishment 

—  Domicile  —  Heresy  —  Contempt  —  Non-attendance  at  church  — 
Romanists  —  New  England  Confederacy  —  Power  of  the  ministers  — 
Civil  Code  —  Roger  Williams  —  Process  against  him  —  His  flight  — 
Reasons  for  the  persecution  —  Mrs.  Hutchinson  —  Antinomian  con- 
troversy —  Sir   Harry  Vane  —  Wheelwright  —  Synod   of   1637  — 


Xll  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Action  of  general  court  —  Remonstrance  —  Banishment  of  Mrs. 
HutchinSon — Church  trial  and  censure  — Harvard  College  —  Samuel 
Gorton  —  "  Presbyterian  Cabal "  —  "  New  England's  Jonas  Cast-up 
at  London"  —  Cambridge  Synod  —  Civil  interferences  —  William 
Pynchon  —  Clarke  and  Holmes  at  Lynn  —  Saltonstall's  letter  — 
Cotton's  reply  —  "  Simple  Cobler  of  Aggawam  "  —  The  English 
commonwealth  —  More  repression  —  Popery  and  Christmas — Moral 
laxity  —  Non-church  members  —  Half- Way  Covenant  —  Synod  of 
Boston,  1662  —  Widening  of  franchise  —  Quakers  —  Their  offensive 
conduct  —  Frantic  legislation  —  Executions  —  Disapproval  of  the 
people  —  Reproof  of  the  king  —  Judgment  on  the  persecution  —  Its 
effect  on  the  theocracy  —  Suffrage  and  Episcopacy  —  Royal  commis- 
sioners to  the  colonies  —  New  law  of  franchise  —  Baptists  persecuted 

—  Popular  disapproval  —  The  charter  revoked  —  Governor  Andros  — 
Struggle  for  Episcopal  services  —  Proclamation  of  religious  liberty 
by  James  II.  —  Boston  regards  it  suspiciously  —  Accession  of  Will- 
iam III.  —  New  Massachusetts  charter  absorbs  Plymouth  —  All 
religious  restriction  on  suffrage  removed  —  Church  support  —  The 
Five-Mile  Act  — The  Great  Awakening  —  Futile  efforts  to  obtain  a 
synod  in  1725  — Loss  of  ministerial  power 148 

3.    Connecticut 

Foundation  a  protest  against  ecclesiasticism  of  the  Bay  —  The  younger 
Winthrop  and  Hooker  —  Say  brook  —  Character  and  attitude  of 
Hooker  —  Settlement  on  the  Connecticut  in  1638  —  Civil  power  in 
the  Church  —  Church  polity  —  Liberality  —  The  franchise  —  Legis- 
lative care  of  the  churches  —  High  moral  and  non-political  purpose 
of  magistrates  —  No  persecutions  —  Organization  of  churches  — 
Maintenance  of  the  ministry  —  Beginnings  of  voluntary  system  — 
Meeting-houses  —  The  legislature  an  Ecclesiastical  Court  —  Legis- 
lative interest  in  Spiritual  Affairs  —  Half- Way  Covenant  —  Religious 
life  —  Report  on  state  of  religion  by  the  general  association  of  min- 
isters to  the  legislature  —  Say  brook  Synod  and  Platform  —  By  the 
legislature  made  law  —  Dissent  —  Quakers  —  Charter  of  1662  — 
Royal  commissioners  —  Acknowledgment  of  liberty  of  opinion  — 
Report  of  Governor  Leete,  1680  —  Under  James  II.  and  William  III. 

—  First  movements  towards  organized  dissent  —  Episcopal  Church 
at  Stratford  —  Act  of  1708  —  Defection  of  Cutler  and  Johnson  — 
Disorders  —  Church  rates  — : ' '  Act  for  ease  of  such  as  soberly  dis- 
sent," 1727  —  The  Great  Awakening — Disturbances  —  New  law  for 
dissenters,  1743  —  Distinction  against  Romanists — The  Moravians 
at  Sharon  and  Kent  —  Silenced  and  driven  away  —  Protest  of  Zin- 
zendorf— The  "Separates,"  or  "New  Lights "  — Absence  of  theo- 
cratic ideal  ,    238 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS  Xlll 


4.    The  New  Haven  Theocracy 

PAGE 

More  strict  than  Massachusetts  —  Eaton  and  Davenport  —  Settlement 
on  the  Quinnipiac  —  "Civil  Government  according  to  God"  — 
Constitution  —  Seven  Pillars  —  Religious  function  of  government  — 
Unity  of  Church  and  State — "Blue  Laws"  —  Franchise  —  New 
England  Confederacy  —  "  Jurisdiction  "  —  Milford  —  Quakers  — 
Drastic  laws  against  them  —  Discontent  with  limited  franchise  — 
Union  with  Connecticut  —  Regicides  —  Davenport  removes  to  Bos- 
ton —  Pierson  founds  Newark  in  New  Jersey 280 

5.   New  Hampshire 

Founded  by  exiles  for  conscience — "Agreement"  for  government  — 
Wheelwright  —  Franchise  —  Religious  establishment  —  Support  of 
the  Church  —  Union  with  Massachusetts  —  Quakers  —  Union  dis- 
solved, 1679  —  New  Hampshire  becomes  a  royal  province  —  Fran- 
chise given  to  "all  Englishmen-Protestants"  —  Church  support 
again  —  Governor  Cranfield  —  Attempt  to  establish  the  Church  of 
England  —  Persecution  of  Rev.  Joshua  Moody  —  Church  a  town 
establishment  —  Not  much  legislation  on  religious  matters  —  Method 
of  choosing  ministers  —  Religious  tests  —  Legislature  considers  pro- 
priety of  publishing  a  religious  treatise 290 

VI 

CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS 

Modifications  during  the  colonial  period  of  the  relations  between  Church 
and  State 301 

1.   New  York 

The  Dutch  West  India  Company  —  Settlement  on  Manhattan  —  Care 
of  religion  —  Reformed  Church  established  —  Patroons  —  Quarrel 
on  appointment  of  minister  —  Company  exercise  authority  over 
churches  and  minister  —  Megapolensis  —  Bogardus  —  Stuy vesant  — 
Toleration  —  Ann  Hutchinson  —  Ministerial  support  —  Stuyvesant 
dictates  to  ministers  —  Action  against  Lutherans  —  Baptism  —  Reli- 
gious powers  of  a  commercial  company  —  Jews  —  Baptists  —  Act 
against  "conventicles" — Persecution  at  Flushing  —  Harsh  treat- 
ment of  Quakers  —  John  Bowne — English  conquest,  1664  —  Return 
of  Dutch  power  in  1673-1674  —  Evertsen  and  Colve  — Their  action 
in  religious  affairs  —  Fall  of  Reformed  Establishment  —  Dutch 
privileges  secured  by  treaty  —  The  "Duke's  Laws "  —  Freedom  and 
establishment  —  Proclamation  of  religious  liberty  by  James  II.  — 
Andros  —  Right  of  presentation  —  Struggle  with  the  Dutch  Church 
at  Albany — Ordination  of  Tesschenmacker — "Charter  of  Liber- 


xiv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


ties"  —  Beginning  of  effort  to  establish  the  Church  of  England  — 
Dongan — Leisler  —  Romanists  —  Accession  of  William  and  Mary  — 
Royal  instructions  to  governors  concerning  churches  —  Oath  of 
supremacy  —  Fletcher's  struggle  with  the  legislature  to  obtain  an 
act  establishing  the  Anglican  Church  — Act  of  1693  — Does  not 
establish  the  Church  of  England  —  Fletcher's  anger  —  The  act  con- 
strued by  the  legislature  —  Collegiate  Reformed  Church  charter  — 
Incorporation  refused  to  Lutherans  and  Presbyterians  —  Charter  of 
Trinity  Church — Lord  Cornbury  —  His  attempt  to  induct  a  minister 
in  the  Reformed  Church  at  Kingston  —  Dictates  to  the  Church  of 
Kinderhook — Denounces  heresy — The  Jamaica  Church — Patronage 

—  Antonides  and  Freeman  —  Resistance  of  the  former  —  Mackemie 

—  His  trial  —  Governor  Hunter  —  King's  Farm  —  Hunter's  letters 

—  Quakers  —  Moravians  —  Act  against  them  —  Governor  Clinton  — 
Waning  power  —  The  nondescript  establishment — Its  fall        .        .    301 

2.   Maryland 
Calvert  —  Maryland  patent — Religious  freedom — Power  of  proprietary 

—  Intent  of  charter  and  of  Baltimore  —  Character  of  Baltimore  — 
Objections  to  the  charter  —  Settlement  —  Clayborne  —  First  assem- 
bly —  Exclusion  of  clergy  —  "  Body  of  Laws  "  —  Church  liberties  — 
Clergy  subjected  to  civil  law  —  Protestant  majority  —  Bennett  — 
Romanist  officials  —  Discontent  —  Act  of  Toleration  —  Non-Trinita- 
rians excepted  —  Oath  of  fidelity  —  Puritan  ingratitude  —  English 
commonwealth  —  Cromwell    rebukes    the    Puritans  —  Quakers  — 
Treachery  of  James  II.  —Writ  against  the  charter— William  III.  — 
Puritan  plot — Coode's  assembly  —  Charter  revoked  by  William  — 
Church  of  England  established  —  Proscription  of  Roman  Catholics  — 
Non-conformity  —  Act  of  1700  —  Commissary  Bray  —  His  troubles 

—  The  clergy  —  Induction  by  the  governor  —  No  effective  discipline 

—  Restoration  of  Baltimore  —  Offer  of  a  suffragan  —  Stipends  — 
"Proclamation  and  Vestry  Act"  —  Non- conformists  —  Quakers — 
Romanists  — Act  of  1704  — Not  very  effective 362 

3.   New  Jersey 

Settlement  of  Newark  —  The  proprietaries  —  The  " Concessions"  — 
Quaker  purchase  of  West  Jersey  —  "The  Jerseys"  —  West  Jersey 

—  Freedom  of  conscience  —  Civil  rights  —  East  Jersey — Limitations 

—  Political  turmoil  —  Government  of  the  Crown  —  Romanists  — 
Queen  Anne  —  Instructions  to  Cornbury  —  Assumption  of  ecclesi- 
astical power  —  Church  of  England  never  established  in  New  Jersey 

—  Quaker  party  —  Quakers  in  office  —  Refuse  to  defend  the  colony 

—  Colonel  Quary  —  Lewis  Morris  —  Governor  Hunter  —  Act  for 
relief  of  Quakers  —  The  fiction  of  an  establishment  —  Presbyterian 
Society  — Charter  granted 399 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS  XV 

4.    Georgia 

PAGE 

Oglethorpe  —  Charter —  Religious  freedom  for  all  "  except  Papists  "  — 
No  establishment  —  Care  for  religion  —  Charter  voided  in  1752  — 
Province  assumed  by  the  Crown  —  Church  of  England  established  .  418 

VII 
THE  FREE  COLONIES 

No  State-Church  at  any  time  in  fact  or  pretence  —  The  Rhode  Island 
conception  of  liberty  broader  than  that  of  Pennsylvania  —  In  both 
colonies  the  liberty  of  the  individual  complete 422 

1.   Rhode  Island     » 

The  fugitive  Williams  —  Beginning  —  Letter  to  Mason  —  Providence 
Plantation  —  Design  of  foundation  —  Williams's  principle  —  His 
character  —  Rhode  Island  Settlement  —  "Warwick  charter  —  Code  of 
laws  —  Dangers  —  Entrance  to  Confederacy  denied — Hostility  — 
Effort  for  new  charter  —  Charles  II.  —Charter  of  1663  —  The  "  lively 
experiment "  —  Full  liberty  —  Quakers  —  Pseudo-legislation  against 
Romanists  —  Disorders 423 

2.   Pennsylvania  and  Delaware 

William  Penn  —  Charter  —  Perm's  "Address"  —  The  "holy  experi- 
ment"—  Frame  of  government — Religious  restrictions  —  Faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  necessary  to  the  franchise  —  Assembly  of  1682 — The 
"Great  Law"  —  Enfranchisement  of  Romanists  —  Soon  cut  off  by 
Test  Oath  of  William  —  Penn  in  England  —  Legislature  adopts  the 
test  —  Naturalization  —  Pennsylvania  narrower  than  other  colonies 

—  No  persecution  —  Disarming  Romanists  —  Absurdity  of  laws 
against  Romanists      ..........    440 

Delaware,  a  part  of  Pennsylvania,  shared  in  her  spirit  and  law  —  One 
instance  of  discrimination 452 

VIII 
COLONIAL  BISHOPS 

The  demand  for  an  American  Episcopate  —  Need  of  bishops — For  dis- 
cipline and  ordination  —  Reformed  Church  dependent  on  Classis  of 
Amsterdam  —  Differing  relations  to  government  —  Civil  status  of 
the  Church  of  England  —  Early  demands  for  appointment  of  bishops 

—  Episcopal  supervision  —  Commissary  —  Clerical  morals  —  Gov- 
ernor Hart  of  Maryland  —  Dean  Swift  — Church  rates  —  Letters 
from  the   colonies  —  English  sentiment  —  Johnson  of  Stratford  — 
Dr.  Mayhew  against  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 

—  Archbishop   Seeker's  reply — Chandler's  "Appeal"  —  Answer 
by  Dr.  Chauncey  —  Newspapers  —  Reasons  for  opposition  to  bishops 

—  Ulterior  designs  — The  weak  point  in  the  plea  —  "Dissenters "  — 


xvi  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Southern  colonies  —  Sympathy  with  both  parties  —  Strange  indiffer- 
ence of  the  authorities  in  England  —  Toryism  —  Prayers  for  the 
king  —  English  cupidity  and  jealousy  —  Mingling  of  the  question 
with  that  of  political  independence  —  Cessation  of  all  opposition 
after  the  Revolution 464 

IX 
THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION 

Ready  for  complete  severance  —  Contrasts  —  Rhode  Island  —  Pennsyl- 
vania —  Massachusetts  —  Virginia  —  Jonathan  Edwards  —  His  influ- 
ence and  character  — %The  City  of  God  —  The  Half- Way  Covenant  — 
The  call  of  Grace  —  Overture  of  Colonial  Congress  to  Quebec  — 
Action  of  Virginia  —  Convention  of  1776  —  Bill  of  Rights  —  Legisla- 
tion —  Jefferson  —  Madison  —  Ministers'  salaries  —  Disestablishment 

—  Effects  —  §upport  of  religion  —  Appeal  to  the  people — Madison's 
"  Memorial  and  Remonstrance  "  —  "  Declaratory  Act "  —  Slander 
on  Jefferson  —  Ordinance  of  1787  —  Action  in  New  Hampshire  —  In 
Massachusetts  —  In  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  —  In  New  York 

—  Romanists  —  New  Jersey — Pennsylvania  —  Restrictions — Frank- 
lin—  Delaware  —  Maryland  —  North  Carolina  —  South  Carolina  — 
jChristianity  established — Remarkable  provisions  for  the  purity  of 
religion  —  Georgia  —  Insists  on  Protestantism  —  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States — Debates  thereon  in  state  conventions  —  The 
first  article  of  amendments 482 

X 

FINAL  SETTLEMENTS 

Limitations  of  the  general  government  —  Power  of  the  separate  states 
on  the  question — Action  of  the  states  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  —  Virginia  —  The  glebe  lands — Connecticut 

—  Political  aspect  of  the  question  —  Disestablishment  —  Protracted* 
struggle  in  Massachusetts  —  Suits  for  recovery  of  tithes  —  Unita- 
rianism  —  The  Dedham  case  — Disestablishment  —  Pennsylvania  — 
Religious  tests  abolished  —  New  Hampshire  —  "Protestant  Chris- 
tians "  —  Delaware  —  South  Carolina  —  Vermont     .  510 


State  constitutions  compared  —  Exceptions  —  Results  —  Not  toleration, 
but  equality  —  Mutual  relations  of  Church  and  State —  Objections  — 
Incomplete  —  Unchristian  —  Exemption  of  churches  from  taxation 

—  Religion  is  in  life,  not  profession  —  Fullest  liberty  demanded  by 
pure  religion  —  Distinction  between  national  and  individual  duties 

—  A  religious  nation  becomes  such  not  through  law,  but  the  reli- 
gious character  of  citizens  —  Christ's  kingdom  not  of  this  world  — 

His  precepts  make  the  broad  foundation  for  Religious  Liberty          .     617 


AUTHORITIES 

BANCROFT.    History  of  the  United  States,  23d  (8  vol.)  edition,  Boston,  1864. 

McMASTER.     History  of  the'  People  of  the  United  States.  . 

SCHOULER.     History  of  the  United  States.   - 

VON  HOLST.     Constitutional  and  Political  History  of  the  United  States.  • 

FELT.     Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England.    * 

LIBBER.     Civil  Liberty  and  Self-government. 

PAINE.     Eights  of  Man. 

PRICE.     Observations  on  the  American  Revolution. 

r 

WILLIAMS.     The  Bloody  Tenent  of  Persecution.  *~- 

"  Letters. 

E.  G.  SCOTT.     Constitutional  Liberties. 
L.  W.  BACON.     American  Christianity. 

STORY.     Commentaries  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
KENT.     Commentaries  on  American  Law. 
BRYCE.     American  Commonwealth. 

"         Holy  Roman  Empire. 

RAWLE.     View  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
COOLEY.     Constitutional  Limitations. 
BLACKSTONE.     Commentaries. 
INNES.     Church  and  State. 
HOOKER.     Ecclesiastical  Polity. 
RANKE.     History  of  the  Popes. 
KURTZ.     Church  History. 
FISHER.     History  of  the  Christian  Church. 

"          Colonial  Era. 
ELLIOT.     State  and  Church. 
FOWLER.     Life  of  John  Locke. 
MORLEY.     Life  of  Burke. 
SCHAFF.     Religious  Liberty.     (Article  in  Pub.  of  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.,  1886- 

1887.) 

ANDERSON.     History  of  the  Colonial  Church. 

xvii 


xviii  AUTHORITIES 

HAWKS.     Contributions  to  Ecclesiastical  History. 
CAMPBELL.     History  of  Virginia. 
FISKE.     Beginnings  of  New  England. 

"         Old  Virginia  and  her  Neighbors. 

"        Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies. 
FORCE.     Historical  Tracts. 

MASSACHUSETTS  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY:  Collections. 
HENING.     Statutes  of  Virginia. 
STITH.     History  of  Virginia. 
BURKE.     History  of  Virginia. 
HOWISON.     History  of  Virginia. 
VIRGINIA  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  :  Collections. 
MEADE.     Old  Churches  and  Families  of  Virginia. 
FOOTE.     Sketches  of  Virginia. 
SPRAGUE.    Annals  of  the  American  Pulpit. 
Johns  Hopkins  Studies. 
NORTH  CAROLINA  :  Records. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA:  Statutes. 
BYRD.     Manuscripts. 
LORD  BACON.     Works. 
HUTCHINSON.     History  of  Massachusetts  Bay. 

"  Collections. 

PLYMOUTH  COLONY  :  Laws. 

PALFREY.     Compendious  History  of  New  England. 
YOUNG.     Chronicles  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers. 

"         Chronicles  of  Massachusetts. 
BRADFORD.    History  of  Plymouth. 
BARRY.     History  of  Massachusetts. 
WINTHROP,  K.  C.     Life  and  Letters  of  John  Winthrop. 
WINTHROP,  JOHN.     Journal. 
MORTON.     Memorial. 
LOWELL  INSTITUTE:  Lectures. 
PRINCE.     Annals. 

ADAMS.     Three  Episodes  in  Massachusetts  History. 
DOYLE.     The  English  in  America. 

WEEDEN.     Social  and  Economic  History  of  New  England. 
DAVENPORT.     Life  of  John  Cotton. 
MASSACHUSETTS  :  Records. 


AUTHORITIES  xix 


MASSACHUSETTS  :  Colony  Laws. 

ELLIS.     Puritan  Age. 

PARKER.     Massachusetts  and  her  Early  History. 

ARNOLD.     History  of  Rhode  Island. 

Colonial  History  of  New  York. 

Documentary  History  of  New  York. 

ADAMS.     Emancipation  of  Massachusetts. 

MATHER.     Magnolia. 

SEWELL.     Diary. 

BAIRD.     Religion  in  America. 

CONNECTICUT  :  Colonial  Record. 

CONNECTICUT  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  :  Collections. 

NEW  HAVEN  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  :  Papers. 

Cambridge  and  Saybrook  Platforms. 

Letters  to  Connecticut  Governors. 

BARBER.     Historical  Collections. 

ANDREWS.     Moravians  in  Kent.     (Am.  Church  Rev.,  1880.) 

NEW  HAVEN  :   Colonial  Records. 

JOHNSTON.     History  of  Connecticut. 

WOLCOTT.     Memorial  of  Connecticut. 

STANLEY.     Westminster  Abbey. 

BARSTOW.     History  of  New  Hampshire. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  :   Collections. 

BELKNAP.     History  of  New  Hampshire. 

McCLiNTOCK.     History  of  New  Hampshire. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE  :  Provincial  Papers. 

O'CALLAGHAN.     History  of  New  Netherland. 

Laws  of  New  Netherland. 

CORWIN.     History  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

SMITH.     History  of  New  York. 

COBB.     Story  of  the  Palatines. 

Colonial  Laws  of  New  York. 

NEW  YORK  :  Legislative  Journal. 

HOFFMAN.     Ecclesiastical  Law  in  the  State  of  New  York. 

STRONG.     History  of  Flatbush. 

JOHNSON.     Foundation  of  Maryland. 

MARYLAND:  Acts  of  Assembly. 

MARYLAND  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  :  Publications. 


XX  AUTHORITIES 

SCHARF.     History  of  Maryland. 

PERRY.     Historical  Collections. 

SMITH.     History  of  New  Jersey. 

NEW  JERSEY  :  Archives. 

STEVENS.     History  of  Georgia. 

HUBBARD.     History  of  New  England.  • 

PENNSYLVANIA  :  Charter  and  Laws. 

PENNSYLVANIA  :  Colonial  Records. 

PENNSYLVANIA  :  Archives. 

PROUD.    History  of  Pennsylvania. 

STILLE.     Religious  Tests  in  Pennsylvania.     (Penn.  Hist.  Mag.  IX.) 

Laws  of  Delaware. 

DEMAREST.     History  of  the  Reformed  Church. 

BEARDSLEY.     The  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut. 

Letters  by  an  Anti-Episcopalian. 

CHANDLER.    Appeal  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of  England  in  America. 

DE  TOCQUEVILLE.     Democracy  in  America. 

JOHN  ADAMS.     Works. 

JONATHAN  EDWARDS.     Works. 

ALLEN.     Life  of  Edwards. 

RIVES.     Life  of  Madison. 

JEFFERSON.     Works. 

ELLIOTT.     Debates. 

SHEPHERD.     Statutes  at  Large. 

SERGEANT  AND  RAWLE.     Reports. 

STIMSON.     American  Statute  Law. 

WINSOR.     Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  the  United  States.  » 

ROOSEVELT.     Life  of  Gouverneur  Morris.  ' 

TYLER,  M.  C.     Life  of  Patrick  Henry. 


THE   EISE   OP   RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY 
IN   AMERICA 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE 

THE  history  of  religion  and  the  Church  in  America,  as 
these  stand  related  to  the  civil  government,  presents  features 
unparalleled  in  the  rest  of  Christendom,  and  marks  a  sharp 
contrast  with  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical  history  of 
Europe.  Its  resultant  principle  of  Liberty  on  which  religious 
institutions  and  life  in  the  United  States  are  founded  to-day, 
is  thus  a  peculiarly  American  production.  This  principle, 
cutting  right  across  that  which  the  Old  World  had  for  all  the 
Christian  centuries  regarded  as  axiomatic,  illustrates,  better 
than  aught  else,  the  profound  remark  of  Bancroft :  — 

"  American  law  was  the  growth  of  necessity,  not  the  wis- 
dom of  individuals.     It  was  not  an  acquisition  from  abroad ; 
it  was  begotten  from  the  American  mind,  of  which  it  was 
a  natural  and  inevitable,  but  also  a  slow  and  gradual  de- 
velopment."1    America  explicitly  set  aside  all  the  old-time —^ 
theories  of  Church  and  State.     In  varying  forms  these  had  church  and 
obtained  universal  rule.     There  were  differing  policies  of  state> 
union  or  of  control ;  of  alliance,  as  of  two  equal  parties ;  of 
Church  dictation  to  the  state,  of  state  government  over  the 
Church;   of  interference  by  both  with  the  conscience  and 
faith  of  the  individual.     The  basic  idea  of  them  all  assumed 
the  necessity  of  a  vital  relation  between  Church  and  State ;"~ 
an  idea  accepted  by  European  churchmen,  theologians,  states-  ; 
men,  jurists,  and  publicists,  with  scarce  an  exception,  from  the 

1  History  of  the  United  States,  VII,  354,  23rd  (8  vol.)  edition,  Boston, 
1864. 

B  1 


KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Definition. 


An  Ameri- 
can idea. 


time  of  Constantine  to  that  of  Jefferson.  In  clear  denial  of 
all  such  theories,  the  American  principle  declared  them  and 
their  fundamental  idea  to  be  oppressions  of  conscience  and 
abridgments  of  that  liberty  which  God  and  nature  had  con- 
ferred on  every  living  soul. 

With  such  denial,  this  new  principle  denned  that,  neither 
should  the  Church  dictate  to  the  state,  as  having  peremptory 
spiritual  jurisdiction  over  things  civil ;  nor  should  the  state 
interfere  with  the  Church  in  its  freedom  of  creed  or  of  wor- 
ship, in  its  exercise  of  ordination  and  spiritual  discipline; 
nor  yet  again  should  the  individual  be  subjected  to  any 
influence  from  the  civil  government  toward  the  formation 
or  refusal  of  religious  opinions  or  as  regards  his  conduct 
thereunder,  unless  such  conduct  should  endanger  the  moral 
order  or  safety  of  society. 

Thus  by  whatever  causes  promoted,  into  which  it  will  be 
our  study  to  look,  this  revolutionary  principle,  declarative 
of  the  cp_mplete  separation  of  Church  from  state,  so  startlingly 
in  contrast  with  the  principles  which  had  dominated  the  past 
—  this  pure  Religious  Liberty  —  may  be  confidently  reckoned 
as  of  distinctly  American  origin.  Individuals  there  had 
been,  whose  thought  had  reached  to  the  natural  right  of  this 
principle ;  governments  and  peoples  had  asserted  and  main- 
tained for  themselves  freedom  from  all  alien  religious  dicta- 
tion ;  but  it  was  reserved  for  the  people  and  governments  of 
this  last  settled  among  the  lands  to  announce  the  religious 
equality  of  all  men  and  all  creeds  before  the  law,  without 
preference  and  without  distinction  or  disqualification.  Here, 
among  all  the  benefits  to  mankind  to  which  this  soil  has 
given  rise,  this  pure  religious  liberty  may  be  justly  rated  as 
i  the  great  gift  of  America  to  civilization  and  the  world,  hav- 
;  ing  among  principles  of  governmental  policy  no  equal  for 
moral  insight,  and  for  recognition  both  of  the  dignity  of  the 
human  soul  and  the  spiritual  majesty  of  the  Church  of  God. 

To  the  average  American  citizen  of  to-day  it  may  not  at 
once  appear  that  this  religious  liberty,  as  defined  in  the  law 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  3 

and  life  of  this  land,  is  to  be  thus  characterized  as  of  distinctly 
American  origin.  We  have  been  born  and  nurtured  in  its 
atmosphere,  without  questioning  its  source  or  analyzing  its 

constituents.     As  with  other  natural  rights,  no  doubt  has       

affected  the  mind  with  regard  to  its  propriety  and  justice. 
It  is  like  the  air  we  breathe,  breathed  and  unthought  of, 
save  when  some  hostile  element  asserts  itself.  For  the  most 
part,  its  coming  into  the  public  life  was  so  gradual  and  in  so 
quiet  fashion,  that  no  challenge  was  given  to  the  attention 
of  the  people.  Save  in  New  England,  where  Puritan  exclu-  /-^j 
siveness  struggled  to  hinder  its  approach;  and  in  Virginia, 
where  the  "gentlemanly  conformity  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land "  was  impatient  of  dissent ;  and  yet  again,  for  two 
short  periods,  in  New  York,  where  the  fanatical  folly  of 
Dutch  and  English  governors  led  to  cruelty  and  oppression, — 
the  people  of  the  colonies  at  large  were  scarce  cognizant  of 
the  process  by  which  this  principle  was  gradually  taking 
such  place  in  their  thought  and  life,  that  in  the  ripeness  of 
time  it  should  be  crystallized  in  the  fundamental  law. 

Happily  for  the  people,  their  rights  of  conscience  were 
never  forced  in  this  country  to  appeal  to  arms,  and  the  soil 
of  America  was  never  drenched,  as  were  so  many  battle-  Persecution, 
fields  in  the  Old  World,  with  the  blood  of  men  fighting  and 
dying  for  conscience  and  creed.  There  were  some  cases  of 
wicked  cruelty.  Colonial  law,  judicial  action,  and  official 
spite  were  not  always  free  from  the  spirit  and  the  severe  act 
of  persecution.  But  the  instances  were  rare,  and  bore  no 
comparison  with  the  ruthless  and  sweeping  cruelty  which 
turned  Holland,  England,  and  Scotland  into  houses  of  mourn- 
ing. Of  these  few  instances  of  colonial  persecution  it  is  folly 
to  speak  in  apologetic  terms.  The  significant  thing  about 
them  is,  that  they  were  speedily  followed  by  such  a  revul- 
sion of  the  public  mind  that  the  after-occurrence  of  similar 
cruelties  was  made  forever  impossible. 

So  it  was  that  the  religious  liberty  of  America  grew  quietly. 
Differentiating  itself  from  all  systems  of  mutual  relationship 


4  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

between  religion  and  law  ever  known  in  the  world  before, 
save  for  a  short  period  in  the  age  of  Constantine,  it  came  to 
its  right  and  place  almost  without  observation.  It  also  did 
its  work  so  well  as  to  put  upon  its  conclusions  the  force  and 
effect  of  axioms,  assuming  to  the  universal  American  mind  so 
self-evident  and  natural  demonstration  as  to  promote  surprise 
that  there  should  be  any  to  deny  their  value  and  necessity. 

Of  course,  this  idea  of  growth  implies  that  the  principle  of 

liberty  in  religious  matters  did  not  assert  itself,  save  in  one 

Growth.        instance,  at  once   that   American   colonization   was   begun. 

For  the  most  part,  the  founders  of  the  various  colonies  came 

to  this  country  imbued  with  the  ideas  concerning  the  relations 

between  government  and  religion,  which  had  been  universal 

in  Europe.      He  who  voiced  the  exception  noted,  stood  in 

\  marked  contrast  with  all  churchmen  and  all  statesmen  of  his 

v^ 

time.  They,  with  one  consent,  agreed  that  the  lines  of  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  establishment  should  intersect,  with  more  or 
less  of  dependence  of  one  upon  the  other,  and  more  or  less  of 
direction  of  one  by  the  other.  As  we  shall  see  in  the  next 
chapter,  there  were  differing  phases  of  this  general  and 
underlying  principle,  according  as  one  or  other  factor  rose  to 
the  ascendancy. 

This  principle  was  not  called  in  question  by  the  Refor- 
mation, which  lost  so  many  provinces  to  Rome.  It  met  only 
the  dissent  of  despised  Anabaptists  and  Separatists.  It  lay 
in  the  general  mind  as  an  axiom  not  to  be  doubted  for  a 
moment,  and  with  the  force  of  its  unquestioned  assumption 
the  fathers  of  New  England,  New  York,  Virginia,  and 
Carolina,  laid  the  foundations  of  their  new  home  and  govern- 
ment on  these  western  shores. 

Roger  This  makes  the  attitude  of  our  American  exception,  Roger 

iihams.      Williams,  the  more  striking  and  significant.      More  than  one 
~"~  hundred  years  in  advance  of  his  time,   he  denied  the  en- 
tire theory  and   practice  of  the  past.     To  his  mind  it  was 
alike   unphilosophical   and   unchristian;    on  the   one   hand, 
an  invasion  of  the  natural  spiritual  liberty  of  man,  and  on  the 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  5 

other,   an  unwarranted  intrusion   of  human   authority  into  / 
realms  where  the  divine  sovereignty  should  alone  hold  sway. 

Because  he  was  so  far  in  advance  of  his  age,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  Williams  had  not  fully  thought  out  all  the  details  of 
his  revolutionary  principle  and  in  some  respects  failed,  at  the 
outset  of  his  colonial  efforts,  to  discern  some  of  the  limi- 
tations needful  to  the  integrity  and  solidarity  of  society.1 
Nor  is  it  surprising  that,  in  the  first  decades  of  Providence  and 
Rhode  Island,  there  should  have  resorted  thither,  not  only  the 
serious  dissenters  from  the  surrounding  theocracies  of  New 
England,  but  also  many  whose  restless  spirits  were  hostile  to 
all  wholesome  restraint.  The  excess  of  their  ideas  of  liberty 
prevented  that  fraternal  union  which  is  a  necessity  for  all 
organization,  whether  civil  or  religious.  In  some  instances 
there  was  an  impatience  of  all  law,  and  an  unwillingness 
to  submit  to  that  subordination,  which  is  a  condition  not  only 
of  social  permanence  but  also  of  the  continuance  of  liberty  it- 
self. 

The  occurrence  of  such  unrest  in  these  early  years  of 
Williams'  colony,  though  all  the  circumstances  of  the  age 
made  it  both  natural  and  inevitable,  has  often  seemed  to 
obscure  the  glory  of  this  great  apostle  of  spiritual  liberty. 
But  this  is  notably  unjust.  Not  in  a  day  will  the  enunciation 
of  a  new  principle,  especially  if  it  be  radical  and  revolu- 
tionary, lodge  itself  in  the  minds  of  men  with  all  those 
details  of  regulated  application  to  which  only  experience  can 
give  form  and  authority.  To  the  glory  of  Williams  it  re- 
mains true,  that  far  deeper  than  any  men  of  his  age  he  looked 
into  the  laws  of  God  and  spiritual  life  and  into  the  human 
soul ;  that,  as  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilderness,  he  hesitated 
not  to  proclaim  a  truth,  against  which  the  powers  of  Church 
and  State  were  alike  arrayed;  that  he  refused  not  to  en- 
dure cold  and  hunger  and  nakedness,  and  the  loss  of  friends 
and  home,  for  the  sake  of  this  truth ;  and  that  in  the  very 
early  days  of  this  western  world  he  lifted  up  an  ensign  for  the 
1  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  Histoi°y  of  New  England,  II,  294. 


6 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Contents 
of  Liberty. 


Freedom  of 
Conscience. 


people  to  proclaim  true  liberty  of  soul.  There  is  nothing  to 
detract  from  that  glory — the  glory  of  the  prophet  who  afar  off 
tells  of  the  blessing  which  is  to  come. 

It  is  significant,  with  an  import  unequalled  by  any  other 
element  in  colonial  conditions,  that  at  the  very  beginning  this 
standard  should  be  raised,  to  be  at  first  derided  and  driven 
out;  then  to  be  tolerated;  and  at  last,  as  the  promise  of  what 
the  spiritual  mission  of  America  was  to  be,  to  win  to  itself  the 
fealty  and  following  of  every  portion  of  the  land.  To  have 
discovered  and  preached  that  truth  of  the  liberty  of  soul, 
po  that  in  the  blessing  of  it  all  after  generations  have  rejoiced, 
~"places  Williams  among  the  few  great  benefactors  of  the  race, 
and  among  the  earlier  founders  of  the  American  Republic, 
with  whatever  equals,  surely  without  any  superior. 

The  idea  of  a  pure  religious  liberty,  such  as  obtains  in  the 
United  States  and  is  guaranteed  in  the  national  constitution 
and  the  constitutions  of  the  various  states,  seems  at  the  first 
glance  to  be  simple.  Resting  upon  the  fundamental  truth 
that  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  all  its  consequents 
flow  naturally  and  logically  therefrom.  In  the  light  of 
history,  however,  with  the  countless  interferences  of  the  civil 
power,  and  with  the  age-long  struggle  to  ascertain  and  effect 
this  liberty,  the  idea  has  become  complex  and  demands  some 
points  of  definition. 

A  not  uncommon  confusion  of  thought  holds  Freedom  of 
Conscience  as  a  synonym  for  this  liberty.  But  they  are  not  the 
same.  To  establish  the  parallel  we  need  to  add  to  this  free- 
dom of  conscience  its  exercise  in  outward  expression.  In 
reality  the  conscience  is  always  free,  and  the  mind  is  free.  No 
power  on  earth  can  compel  the  conscience  or  the  mind. 

"  The  man  convinced  against  his  will 
Is  of  the  same  opinion  still." 

The  civil  power  may  reach  to  silencing  the  expression  of  that 
opinion,  but  cannot  force  the  intellectual  espousal  of  its 
opposite.  It  may  compel  conformity  to  the  expression  of  a 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  7 

creed  and  the  exercise  of  a  certain  form  of  worship,  but  it 
cannot  transmute  unbelief  into  faith,  or  to  the  inner  conscious- 
ness change  the  nature  of  moral  convictions. 

On  this  point  Dr.  Francis  Lieber  well  and  tersely  says : — 

"  Conscience  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  government.  - 
'  Thoughts  are  free,'  is  an  old  German  Law.  The  same 
must  be  said  of  feelings  and  conscience.  That  which 
government,  even  the  most  despotic,  can  alone  interfere 
with,  is  the  profession  of  religion,  worship,  and  church 
government."  1 

In  the  "  Political  Tractate "  of  Spinoza,  published  after 
his  death,  is  a  very  curious  appeal  to  this  inalienable  freedom 
of  conscience,  as  a  reason  for  submission  by  the  citizen  to 
governmental  regulation  of  outward  religious  matters.  Having 
urged  that  the  safety  of  society  required  that  the  state  should 
direct  all  public  faith  and  worship,  he  meets  the  argument 
from  conscience  with  the  words,  "  The  mind  of  the  individual 
belongs  to  himself,  not  to"  the  state.  Wherever  I  am,  I  can 
worship  God  and  cultivate  religion  in  my  heart,  and  can  look 
after  my  own  conduct ;  and  that  is  the  business  of  the  private 
citizen.  The  care  of  spreading  that  religion  is  to  be  handed 
over  to  God  and  to  the  supreme  powers,  for  to  them  alone  it 
belongs  to  care  for  the  community."  The  sophistical  character 
of  this  argument  is  abundantly  evident,  yet  the  distinction 
made  as  to  the  inalienable  freedom  of  mind  is  true  as  it  is 
acute.  Only  when  the  outspeaking  of  faith  or  thought 
demands  that  it  be  untrammelled  by  civil  power,  and  only 
when  the  demand  of  conscience  reaches  to  the  outward  exer- 
cise of  worship  in  whatever  forms  shall  seem  best  to  the 
worshipper,  does  the  freedom  of  conscience  assume  the  larger 
dignity  of  religious  liberty. 

Another  mistaken  conception,  not  unfrequently  coming  to  Tojeration. 
speech,  is   the   likening  of  religious   liberty  to  Toleration. 
This  mistake  is  gross,  for  the  two  things  are  irreconcilably  at 
odds.     It  may  be  true  enough  that  a  toleration  may  be  so 

1  Civil  Liberty  and  Self  Government,  I,  118,  Note. 


4 


8  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

broad  as  to  furnish  both  safety  and  comfort  to  the  followers 
of  a  tolerated  religion,  and  yet  the  principle  on  which  that 
toleration  is  granted,  is  the  precise  denial  of  the  principle 
which  underlies  the  idea  of  religious  liberty.  Religious 
asserts  the  equality  of  all ;  that  in  the  matters  of 
gion  all  men  are  equal  before  God  and  the  law.  Quite 
opposite  from  this,  toleration  assumes  that  all  are  not  equal, 
that  one  form  of  religion  has  a  better  right,  while  for  the  sake 
of  peace  it  consents  that  they  who  differ  from  it  shall  be 
allowed  to  worship  as  shall  best  please  themselves. 

Toleration,  then,  is  a  gift  from  a  superior  to  one  who  is 
supposed  to  occupy  a  lower  station  in  the  scale  of  rights.  We 
are  compelled  at  times  to  tolerate  that  which  is  incontestably 
evil,  for  the  reason  simply  that  we  cannot  abate  it.  Indeed, 
this  is  in  the  very  meaning  of  the  word.  To  tolerate  is  to 
endure — to  bear  a  burden,  from  which  one  would  gladly  be 
freed.  The  follower  of  any  religion  in  a  hostile  environment 
may  be  very  thankful  for  the  toleration  which  permits  the  free 
exercise  of  his  worship,  with  whatever  limitation  of  civil 
rights  it  may  involve.  But  if  he  understands  himself,  the 
nature  of  religion,  and  the  true  foundation  of  human  rights, 
he  will  recognize  in  that  toleration  itself  an  unjust  burden, 
the  imposition  of  which  is  an  outrage  to  the  dignity  of  the 
soul.  He  will  bear  that  burden  only  so  long  as  he  must,  and 
will  labor  and  pray  unsatisfied  until,  in  the  recognition  of  his 
equal  right  with  all,  he  shall  deem  himself  to  have  obtained 
outwardly  as  inwardly,  that  liberty  with  which  Christ  makes 
His  people  free. 

This  thought  of  toleration  was  finely  expressed  by  Lord 
Stanhope  in  the  house  of  lords,  during  the  debate  of  1827,  on 
the  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  "  Test  and  Corporation  Acts.'' 
"  The  time  was,"  he  said,  "  when  toleration  was  craved  by 
dissenters  as  a  boon ;  it  is  now  demanded  as  a  right ;  but  the 
time  will  come  when  it  will  be  spurned  as  an  insult."  Says 
Paine,  "Toleration  is  not  the  opposite  of  intolerance,  but  is 
the  counterfeit  of  it.  Both  are  despotisms:  the  one  assumes 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  9 

to  itself  the  right  of  withholding  liberty  of  conscience,  the 
other  of  granting  it."  l 

"  In  liberty  of  conscience  I  include  much  more  than  tolera- 
tion. Christ  has  established  a  perfect  equality  among  His 
followers.  It  is  therefore  presumption  in  any  of  them  to 
claim  a  right  to  any  supremacy  or  preeminence  over  their 
brethren.  Such  a  claim  is  implied  whenever  any  of  them 
pretend  to  tolerate  the  rest.  Toleration  can  take  place  only  *~) 

when  there  is  a  civil  establishment  of  a  particular  mode  of  \/      j , 
religion  .  .  .  (which)  thinks  fit  to  suffer  the  exercise  of  other  A 
modes."  2 

There  were  times  in  the  colonial  history  of  America  when 
the  word  toleration  could  be  used  in  description  of  the  ^ 
governmental  attitude  towards  certain  forms  of  religious 
faith  and  worship.  Thus,  after  many  struggles,  the  author- 
ities  of  Massachusetts  concluded  to  tolerate  Episcopalians  and 
Baptists,  while  the  Presbyterians  were  compelled  to  be  satis- 
fied for  many  years  with  the  more  or  less  liberal  toleration  of  j 
New  York  and  Virginia.  But  for  over  a  hundred  years  there 
has  been  neither  place  nor  need  for  toleration  in  these  states, 
where  the  religious  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law  is  made 
a  corner-stone  in  the  foundation  of  rights. 

The  true  definition  of  religious  liberty  is  to  be  sought  in 
two  things :  its  origination  in  the  will  of  God  as  Maker  of  the 
human  soul,  and  its  relation  to  the  civil  law.     That  God  so 
breathed  the  living  spirit  into  man  as  to  constitute  Himself 
the  only  law-giver  of  its  life,  may  be  here  assumed  without 
discussion.     Our  proper   discussion  arises  about  what  civil 
society  and  law  may  have  to  say  touching  the  exercise  of  this     / 
inalienable  right  conferred  by  God  upon  His  creature.     In 
every  community  it  is  the  attitude  of  the  law  which  defines" Delation  to 
the  measure  of  religious  liberty  enjoyed.     According  as  the  ^ml  Law> 
civil  law  interferes  with  religious  matters  by  direct  control ; 
by  establishment  of  a  State-Church ;  by  preference  of    one 

1  Eights  of  Man,  p.  58. 

2  Price,  Observations  on  the  American  Revolution,  p.  28. 


10 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


interfer- 
Russia. 


form  of  religious  organization  to  the  prejudice  of  others  ;  by 

I   exclusion  from  civil  rights  of  the  followers  of  any  specified 

/    form  of  religion  ;  or  as  it  expressly  abstains  from  all  such 

interference,   preference    or    control,  will    the    measure    of 

1    religious  liberty  be  declared. 

This  relation  to  the  civil  law  must  be  emphasized,  as  a  not 
infrequent  confusion  of  thought  grafts  upon  the  idea  of 
religious  liberty  that  which  does  not  belong  to  it.  By  some 
persons  it  is  assumed  that  any  process,  of  any  kind,  against 
preachers  of  so-called  heretical  doctrine  is  an  invasion  of 
religious  liberty.  An  ecclesiastical  trial  or  sentence  for  heresy 
is  sometimes  thus  spoken  of;  but  there  is  no  propriety  in 
such  representation,  which  confounds  two  different  relation- 
ships. A  man's  membership  in  a  church  is  not  the  same  as 
citizenship  ;  and  yet  there  is  this  likeness,  that  both  demand 
loyalty.  If  he  break  the  civil  law,  he  is  rightly  punished.  So 
if  he  prove  false  to  the  Church,  of  which  he  is  a  member,  he 
can  justly  be  proceeded  against.  While  the  civil  law  has  no 
jurisdiction  in  religious  matters,  it  yet  must  hold  true  that  the 
Church  must  have  its  own  law  to  guard  and  maintain  its 
l__  purity.  So  long  as  no  law  compels  a  man  to  be  in  a  Church, 
there  is  no  injustice  in  the  requirement  that,  while  he  is  in  a 
Church,  he  shall  not  teach  doctrine  subversive  of  its  faith  or 
polity.  Such  requirement  is  for  the  protection  of  the  Church 
itself  and  is  in  no  sense  an  oppression  of  conscience.  The 
man  is  at  liberty  to  withdraw.  But  of  all  this  the  civil  law 
takes  no  cognizance  in  this  country. 

There  are  many  degrees  of  interference  by  the  civil  law 
represented  in  the  Christendom  of  to-day.  At  one  extreme 
stands  Russia,  with  so  exclusive  an  ecclesiastical  establish- 
ment, under  the  direct  and  personal  rule  of  the  czar,  that  no 
form  of  dissent  is  tolerated,  save  the  Lutheranism  of  Finland  ; 
while  other  religionists,  such  as  the  Stundists,  are  subjected 
to  the  cruelties  of  a  persecution  almost  equal  to  the  bitterness 
\_  of  fire  and  sword.  At  the  other  extreme  is  England,  where, 
though  the  individual  finds  no  bonds  to  the  following  of  any 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  11 

faith  and  worship  which  his  mind  and  conscience  may  approve, 
yet  an  established  Church,  existent  by  act  of  parliament  and 
supported  by  public  tax,  marks  a  measure  of  state  interference 
with  religious  matters  notably  below  the  standard  of  a  pure 
religious  liberty,  such  as  the  American  understands  that 
liberty  to  be.1 

It  needs  to  be  noted,  however,  that  while  this  relation  to 
the  civil  government  necessarily  involves  such  interferences, 
and  while  the  interferences  are  directly  antagonistic  to  our 
American  idea  of  liberty  of  the  Church,  yet  it  affects  the 
Church  only  as  an  organization,  and  never,  save  in  the  lightest 
and  most  remote  way,  works  aught  that  savors  of  religious 
oppression.  Indeed,  so  far  as  concerns  individual  excursions 
into  the  outlying  regions  of  faith,  the  tendency  is  towards  a 
broader  comprehensiveness  than  would  be  likely  to  obtain  in 
a  self-governing  organization. 

Thus,  there  is  in  the  Church  of  England  a  singular  com-  England, 
pound  of  bondage  and  liberty;  bondage  to  the  state  with 
respect  to  external  order  and  function,  and  freedom  to  the 
individual  in  matters  of  faith.  The  result  from  centuries  of 
growth,  the  home  also  of  much  that  is  sweetest  and  best  in 
the  treasures  of  spiritual  life,  the  Church  of  England  has  en- 
deared itself  to  the  vast  majority  of  Englishmen.  Though  to 
the  American  mind  it  presents  many  features  which  seem 
abatements  from  a  true  liberty  of  faith,  it  is  yet  not  difficult 
to  understand  the  mistaken  lament  of  D'Israeli  over  the  dis- 

1  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  in  England,  while  the  establishment  of  the 
Anglican  Church  determines  the  governmental  preference  and  entails  for  its 
followers  many  valuable  perquisites,  yet  by  reason  of  that  very  establishment 
the  Anglican  Church,  as  a  religious  organization,  is  far  less  free  than  the  dis- 
senting Churches.  Thus,  it  is  not  a  self-governing  body.  It  cannot  alter  its 
articles  of  faith  or  form  of  worship  ;  it  cannot  choose  its  bishops  and  arch- 
bishops ;  it  cannot  issue  to  final  decision  any  but  the  most  insignificant  cases 
of  discipline  ;  and  it  cannot  cast  out  the  most  blatant  heretic  from  its  com- 
munion, be  he  infidel  or  pagan,  without  the  appointment  or  approval  of  the 
civil  government,  or  a  formal  act  of  parliament.  From  any  sentence  of  its 
spiritual  courts  an  appeal  may  lie  to  the  king  in  council,  whose  decision 
either  in  approval  or  reversal  is  alone  final. 


H 


12  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

establishment  of  the  Irish  Church  in  1868,  which  he  described 
as,  "  destroying  that  sacred  union  between  Church  and  State 
which  has  hitherto  been  the  chief  means  of  our  civilization, 
and  is  the  only  security  for  our  religious  liberty." 

In  distinction  from  all  the  degrees  of  union  and  mutual 
dependence  between  Church  and  State,  which  have  ever 
obtained  in  the  past  or  now  exist  in  various  parts  of  the 
Christian  world,  the  American  principle  asserts  an  entire  in- 
dependence and  separation,  both  as  the  Church  might  seek  to 
control  the  organic  action  of  the  state,  and  as  the  state  might 
affect  to  interfere  with  the  faith  or  function  of  the  Church. 
Limitations^  In  their  mutual  relation,  the  Church  is  limited  to  the  cul- 
/  tivation  in  the  citizen  of  those  virtues  of  order,  truth,  and 
righteousness,  which  shall  mould  good  citizenship,  and  through 
that  a  righteous  nation ;  while  the  state  is  confined  to  adjudi- 
cation of  such  questions  as  involve  the  rights  of  property  and 
of  ecclesiastical  corporations  voluntarily  formed  under  the 
statute  law.  The  implied  duty  herein  of  the  Church  arises 
.from  the  moral  quality  of  its  mission  as  a  teacher  of  righteous- 
ness ;  while  the  duty  of  the  state  comes,  not  from  religious 
•  considerations,  but  from  its  place  as  guardian  of  the  good 
order  of  society. 

The  independence  here  asserted  is  complete  in  respect 
to  all  matters  of  faith,  worship,  and  ecclesiastical  action. 
The  grounds  of  this  independence  may  be  well  stated  in  the 
words  of  Roger  Williams.  Despite  the  occasional  quaintness 
of  his  language,  the  one  hundred  years  of  struggle  after  his 
day  and  the  following  century  of  experiment  and  proof  have 
not  produced  a  better  statement  of  the  principle.  Perhaps 
we  might  desire  to  change  a  phrase  or  two  as  possibly  sug- 
gestive of  exaggeration,  but  the  general  principle  stands  clear 
and  is  well  defended. 

"All  civil  states,"  writes  Williams,  "with  their  officers 
of  justice,  in  their  respective  constitutions  and  administra- 
tions, are  .  .  .  essentially  civil,  and  therefore  not  judges, 
governors,  or  defenders  of  the  Spiritual,  or  Christian,  State 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  13 

and  worship.  ...  It  is  the  will  and  command  of  God  that, 
since  the  coming  of  His  Son,  the  Lord  Jesus,  a  permission  of 
the  most  Paganish,  Jewish,  Turkish,  or  anti-Christian  con- 
sciences and  worship  be  granted  to  all  men,  in  all  nations 
and  countries ;  and  they  are  only  to  be  fought  against  with 
that  sword  which  is  only,  in  Soul  matters  able  to  conquer, 
to  wit ;  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  —  the  Word  of  God.  .  .  .  God 
requireth  not  an  uniformity  of  religion  to  be  enacted  and  en- 
forced in  any  civil  state ;  which  enforced  uniformity,  sooner 
or  later,  is  the  greatest  occasion  of  civil  war,  ravishing  con- 
sciences, persecution  of  Christ  Jesus  in  His  servants,  and  of 
the  hypocrisy  and  destruction  of  millions  of  souls.  .  .  .  An  en- 
forced uniformity  of  religion  throughout  a  nation  or  civil 
state  confounds  the  civil  and  religious,  denies  the  principles 
of  Christianity  and  civility,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh."  1 

On  a  foundation  so  deep  and  broad  as  this  did  Williams 
essay  the  building  of  institutions  wherein  a  universal  and 
comprehensive  liberty  should  dwell.  "  His  work  in  life  seems 
to  have  been  that  of  transforming  this  sentiment  [freedom  of 
conscience]  into  a  living  force,  and  to  him  is  due  the  honor 
of  being  the  first  who  recognized  it  as  a  constitutional  prin- 
ciple, and  who  actually  created  a  polity  that  had  it  for  a 
foundation  stone."  2 

As  is  well  known,  these  principles  were  far  from  meeting, 
in  Williams'  day,  with  general  recognition  and  approval. 
Rather  were  they  reprobated  by  the  majority  of  colonists, 
while  their  teacher  was  subjected  to  exile  and  much  affliction 
on  their  account.  But  he  sowed  his  seed  in  good  soil,  wherein 
it  took  root  and  grew,  until  the  whole  land  now  dwells  under 
the  shadow  of  its  stately  tree  of  life.  To  the  aid  of  his  doctrine 
presently  came  Calvert,  of  whom  it  is  hardly  unjust  to  say, 
that  the  motive  of  his  prescription  of  religious  liberty  may 
have  been  one  rather  of  shrewd  policy  than  of  necessary 

1  Bloody  Tenent  of  Persecution,  1,  2. 

2  Scott's  Constitutional  Liberty,  p.  107. 


14  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

moral  principle.  Within  the  half  century  Penn  added  his 
testimony  of  charity,  clearly  recognizing  the  principle  of 
religious  freedom  and  lifting  up  its  standard  in  the  heart  of 
the  colonies,  though  with  some  inconsistent  restrictions. 

From  such  beginnings  the  leaven  worked  throughout  the 
whole  lump  of  colonial  life,  gradually  bringing  under  its 
influence,  with  but  very  few  and  weak  exceptions,  the  mind 
Fostering  of  the  entire  people.  There  were  many  fostering  circum- 
stances" stances.  The  conditions  of  life  and  society  in  the  new  world, 
where  men  had  to  found  de  novo  their  institutions,  at  great 
distance  from  the  straitening  influence  of  age-long  prescrip- 
tion and  custom,  had  much  in  them  to  abet  impatience  with 
whatever  should  seek  to  fetter  free  expansion.  The  character 
of  much  of  the  immigration  went  for  the  issue  of  liberty.  The 
adventurous  spirit  out  of  which  came,  first,  more  or  less  of 
dissatisfaction  with  home  conditions ;  and  second,  voluntary 
exile  into  new  climes  to  meet  hardness  and  danger,  insensibly 
fitted  the  mind  to  the  propositions  of  liberty.  Almost  from 
the  very  beginning  the  colonists  assumed  a  larger  political 
liberty  than  they  had  known,  as  the  plain  necessity  of  their 
colonial  life.  It  is  not  strange  that,  in  harmony  with  this 
new  spirit,  the  conscience  should  presently  seek  to  free  itself 
from  all  bonds  of  human  authority. 

To  this  was  added  a  natural  resentment  towards  the  foolish 
and  arbitrary  actions  of  the  civil  authorities  in  many  questions 
of  religious  import.  The  unwise  severity  of  theocratic  Massa- 
chusetts revolted  many  of  her  own  citizens.  The  brutalities 
of  Berkeley  in  Virginia,  and  the  impudent  arrogance  of 
Fletcher  and  Cornbury  in  New  York,  had  large  influence  in 
preparing  the  people  for  the  separation  of  religion  from  the 
care  of  the  civil  power.  At  the  same  time,  the  neglect  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  colonies  by  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  at  home,  the  shameful  personal  character  of  the 
majority  of  its  clergy  in  Maryland  and  Virginia,  together 
with  the  absence  of  anything  like  efficient  episcopal  juris- 
diction, resulted  in  strengthening  the  same  feeling.  To  these 


THE  AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  15 

still  another  factor  was  added  in  the  number  of  sects,  no  one 
of  which,  outside  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  em- 
braced the  majority  of  the  population,  so  that  it  was  impossible 
to  continue  to  any  one  the  preference  of  the  civil  power, 
without  entailing  the  animosity  of  all  the  rest.  Doubtless 
also  much  was  due  to  the  religious  indifference  so  widely 
existent  in  the  period  of  the  later  colonial  and  the  revolu- 
tionary eras.1 

By  reason  of  such  general  and  many  minor  influences,  the 
education  of  the  people  in  the  principles  of  religious  liberty 
was  equal-paced  with  that  which  issued  in  political  indepen- 
dence; so  that  together  with  the  doctrine,  that  the  American 
state  should  no  longer  owe  allegiance  to  the  mother  country, 
was  also  uttered  the  new  and  startling  declaration,  that  the 
American  Church  should  henceforth  be  free  from  all  dictation 
and  interference  by  the  state. 

It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  several  points  of  distinction  points  of 
which  make  up  the  American  idea  of  religious  liberty.     Its  dlstmctlon> 
complete  separation  of  state  from  Church  involves  that :  — 

1.  The  civil  power  has  no  authority  in,  or  over,  the  individ- 

ual or  the  Church,  touching  matters  of  faith,  worship, 
order,  discipline,  or  polity. 

2.  The  Church  has  no  power  in  the  state  to  direct  its  policy 

or  action,  otherwise  than  its  influence  may  be  felt  in 
the  persuasion  of  the  public  mind  towards  the  prin- 
ciples it  teaches. 

3.  The   state   cannot   appropriate    public   moneys   to   the 

Church,  or  for  the  propagation  of  religion,  or  any 
particular  form  of  religion. 

4.  The  Church  cannot  look  to  the  state  for  any  support  of 

its  worship  or  institutions,  otherwise  than,  like  all 
other  corporations,  it  may  appeal,  and  must  submit, 
to  legislation  and  judicial  decisions  in  matters  of 
pecuniary  trusts  and  foundations,  the  ground  of 
1  See  Bacon's  American  Christianity,  p.  221. 


16  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

which  legislation  and  decisions  is  not  at  all  religious, 
but  strictly  civil. 

5.  The  civil  power  cannot  exercise  any  preference  among 

the  various  churches  or  sects,  but  must  hold  all  as 
having  equal  rights  under  the  law,  and  as  equally 
entitled  to  whatever  protection  under  the  law  circum- 
stances may  furnish  need  for. 

6.  The  civil  power  may  not  make  any  distinction  among 

citizens  on  account  of  religion,  unless  the  following 
thereof  is  dangerous  to  society.  Neither  the  right  to 
vote  nor  to  hold  office  is  to  be  invalidated  because  of 
opinions  on  the  matter  of  religion.  Nor,  again,  is  a 
citizen's  right  to  bear  witness,  or  to  inherit  property 
to  be  called  in  question  for  reasons  of  religion. 

Thus  the  severance  of  state  from  Church  —  of  the  civil  power 
from  all  efficient  concernment  for  religion  — is  made  thorough 
to  the  minutest  detail.  As  Story  somewhat  boldly  phrases 
it,1  "  The  Catholic  and  the  Protestant,  the  Calvinist  and  the 
Arminian,  the  Jew  and  the  Infidel  may  sit  down  at  the  com- 
mon table  of  the  National  Councils  without  any  inquisition 
into  their  faith  and  mode  of  worship." 

Such  is  the  peculiar  contribution  of  America  to  the  forma- 
tive ideas  of  civilization,  the  rise  of  which  and  its  formulation 
in  the  fundamental  law  afford  a  study  of  great  and  varied  in- 
terest. "Of  all  the  differences  between  the  Old  World  and 
the  New  this  is  perhaps  the  most  salient."  2  It  is  interesting 
to  note  how  thoroughly  it  permeated  the  social  life  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  people,  and  how,  under  the  influence  of  its 
beneficial  ministry  of  a  century  and  a  quarter,  it  has  so  justi- 
fied itself  as  to  take  in  the  mind  of  American  jurists  and  pub- 
licists the  form  and  dignity  of  inherent  and  self-evident  truth. 
Lieber.  Thus  writes  Dr.  Lieber,3  "  Liberty  of  Conscience,  or,  as  it 


The  Constitution,  Sec.  1880. 
3  Bryce,  American  Commonwealth,  II,  554. 
8  Civil  Liberty  and  Self  Government,  I,  118. 


THE   AMERICAN  PRINCIPLE  17 

ought  to  be  called  more  properly,  the  liberty  of  worship,  is 
one  of  the  primordial  rights  of  man,  and  no  system  of  liberty 
can  be  considered  comprehensive,  which  does  not  include 
guarantees  for  the  exercise  of  this  right.  It  belongs  to 
American  liberty  to  separate  entirely  from  the  political  gov- 
ernment the  institution  which  has  for  its  object  the  support 
and  diffusion  of  religion."  In  like  manner,  Kent  declares,1  Kent. 
"  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession 
and  worship  may  be  considered  as  one  of  the  absolute  rights 
of  the  individual,  recognized  in  our  American  Constitution  and 
secured  by  law.  Civil  and  religious  liberty  generally  go  hand 
in  hand,  and  the  suppression  of  either  of  them,  for  any  length 
of  time,  will  terminate  the  existence  of  the  other."  With 
similar  thought  Rawle,  discoursing  about  statutory  interfer-  Rawle. 
ence  with  religion,  says,2  "  Thus  a  human  government  inter- 
poses between  the  Creator  and  His  creature,  intercepts  the 
devotion  of  the  latter,  or  condescends  to  permit  it  only  under 
political  regulations.  From  injustice  so  gross  and  impiety  so 
manifest  multitudes  sought  an  asylum  in  America,  and  hence 
she  ought  to  be  the  hospitable  and  benign  receiver  of  every 
variety  of  religious  opinion."  Thus  also  Judge  Cooley  writes,  Cooley. 
"Nothing  is  more  fully  set  forth  or  more  plainly  expressed 
(in  the  American  Constitutions)  than  the  determination  of 
their  authors  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  religious  liberty, 
and  to  guard  against  the  slightest  approach  towards  the  estab- 
lishment of  any  inequality  in  the  civil  and  political  rights 
of  citizens,  which  shall  have  for  its  basis  only  their  differences 
of  religious  belief.  The  American  people  came  to  the  work  of 
framing  their  fundamental  laws  after  centuries  of  religious 
oppression  and  persecution  —  sometimes  by  one  party  or  sect 
and  sometimes  by  another — had  taught  the  utter  futility  of 
all  attempts  to  propagate  religion  by  the  rewards,  penalties, 
or  terrors  of  human  law.  They  could  not  fail  to  perceive  also 
that  a  union  of  Church  and  State  like  that  which  existed  in 

1  Commentaries, — Part  4,  Sec.  24. 

2  Rawle  on  The  Constitution,  p.  117. 


18  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

England,  if  not  wholly  impracticable  in  America,  was  cer- 
tainly opposed  to  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  and  that  any 
domineering  of  one  sect  over  another  was  repressing  to  the 
energies  of  the  people,  and  must  necessarily  tend  to  discon- 
tent and  disorder."  l 

Such  is  the  American  principle  of  religious  liberty,  unique 
among  the  governmental  policies  of  the  world,  the  evolution 
of  which  in  the  colonial  era  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  present 
work  to  trace.  In  order  to  observe  its  spring  and  progress  in 
true  historical  perspective,  we  shall  do  well  to  note  some  of 
the  antecedent  conditions,  and  to  review  the  development  and 
chief  elements  of  the  Old  World  Idea,  in  as  brief  space  as  the 
subject  will  permit. 

1  Cooley,  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  371.  Cf .  von  Hoist,  Constitutional 
History  of  U.  & ,  v.  103,  yi.  260. 


II 

THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA 

THAT  questions  as  to  the  relation  between  things  religious 
and  things  political  have  occupied  large  space  in  the  history 
of  Europe,  is  evident  to  the  most  casual  reader.  It  will  be 
difficult,  indeed,  to  find  any  other  question  so  important,  so 
insistent  for  solution,  so  widely  affecting  society,  and  so  effi- 
cient in  guiding  historic  development.  Thus,  in  very  emphatic 
words,  Ranke  declares,  "  The  whole  life  and  character  of  West- 
ern Christendom  consists  of  the  constant  action  and  counter- 
action of  Church  and  State."  From  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  state  it  was  assumed  that,  among  its  first  duties  and 
missions  was  care  for  the  interests  of  the  Church  or  submis- 
sion to  its  demands;  and  it  was  soon  made  evident  that  the  '• 
union  between  the  two  was  so  intimate  that,  whatever  became 
of  interest  to  the  one  was  matter  for  action  by  the  other.  In 
all  matters  of  peace  and  war,  in  all  arrangements  of  society, 
in  all  movements  and  policies  of  government,  and  in  all  pop- 
ular ferments,  the  loudest  and  most  imperative  voice  came 
either  from  this  settled  principle  of  union,  or  from  the  deter- 
mined efforts  to  shake  off  its  bonds. 

This  thought  is  expressed  by  Story  in  perhaps  somewhat 
exaggerated  language  : a  "  Half  the  calamities,  with  which 
the  human  race  has  been  scourged,  have  arisen  from  the  Union 
of  Church  and  State."  If  the  view  were  confined  to  that  por- 
tion of  the  race  which  has  dwelt  under  European  institutions, 
we  might  accept  the  statement  without  great  reduction  of  its 
terms.  Such  is  the  more  guarded  expression  of  Bryce:2 

1  On  the  Constitution  of  United  States,  Sec.  622. 

2  American  Commonwealth,  II,  554. 

19 


20  RISE   OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"Half  the  wars  of  Europe,  half  the  internal  troubles  that  have 
vexed  the  European  States,  from  the  Monophysite  contro- 
X/versies  in  the  Roman  Empire  of  the  fifth  century  down  to  the 
Kultur  Kampf  in  the  German  Empire  of  the  nineteenth,  have 
arisen  from  theological  differences,  or  from  rival  claims  of 
Church  and  State." 

To  thoroughly  understand,  then,  the  character  of  the  unique 
development  of  the  American  principle  of  entire  separation, 
and  to  appreciate  the  gravity  of  the  revolution  thereby  intro- 
duced, the  student  must  hold  in  mind  the  more  salient  fea- 
tures of  the  European  principle  and  its  development.  At  the 
outset,  also,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  study  is  necessarily  con- 
fined almost  entirely  to  western  Christendom.  The  eastern 
Church,  resigned  to  the  protection  of  the  empire,  sank  into 
dependence  and  subsequent  decadence,  alien  to  those  move- 
ments of  thought  and  purpose  out  of  which  struggle  and 
advancement  come.  It  was  content  to  be  the  servant  and 
creature  of  the  state. 

Quite  diversely,  the  western  Church,  cast  on  its  own  resources 
of  courage,  faith,  and  resolution  by  the  destruction  of  the  em- 
pire, grew  increasingly  virile  and  ambitious  as  the  centuries 
advanced.  The  sole  saviour  of  society  in  the  midst  of  the 
chaos  of  empire,  it  found  itself  guide  and  arbiter  in  countless 
matters  other  than  those  which  concerned  faith  and  worship. 
It  is  not  strange  that  its  ambition,  thus  nurtured,  should  reach 
to  the  complete  mastership  over  kings,  governments,  and  peo- 
ple. Nor  is  it  strange  that,  with  the  resettlement  of  society 
and  the  growing  consciousness  of  national  life,  there  should 
arise  struggle  and  revolt  against  an  exacting  ecclesiasticism 
—  a  revolt  to  which  the  Renaissance  of  art  and  letters,  with 
its  logical  consequent  of  the  Reformation,  added  both  strength 
and  variety. 

A  Christian    '  From  the  nature  of  the  case  the  problem  of  Church  and 

Problem.     .  State  is  entirely  Christian.    It  could  arise  only  within  the  pale 

of  a  Christian  society,  more  or  less  civilized  and  advanced.    To 

the  Hebrew  cultus  it  was  unknown,  and  its  propositions  would 


THE  OLD   WORLD  IDEA  21 

be  unintelligible.  The  Hebrew  State  and  Church  were  one,  The  Hebrew 
merged  together,  not  as  by  union  of  two  distinct  entities,  but  Theocracy- 
as  the  component  factors  of  one  substance,  neither  of  which 
could  exist  without  the  other.  This  finds  illustration  through- 
out Hebrew  history,  both  in  that  divine  institution  wherein 
the  civil  and  the  ecclesiastical  law  are  seen  to  be  identical, 
and  in  those  results  of  recurrent  impiety,  which  instantly 
entailed  national  degradation  only  to  be  retrieved  by  a  revival 
of  religion.  Thus,  the  Hebrew  state  was  set  as  the  embodi- — 
ment  of  the  supreme  religion.  God  was  declared  the  Ruler 
and  Head,  not  only  as  He  is  the  Governor  of  all  the  nations, 
but  as  the  recognized  constitutional  Source  of  all  authority 
for  the  Hebrew  in  things  secular  and  things  religious. 
David  was  the  viceroy  of  the  true  King  of  Israel,  and  his 
realm  constituted  the  visible  Church  of  God  —  a  genuine 
Theocracy. 

In  the  heathen  world  other  conditions  were  exclusive  of  paganCon- 
our  Christian  problem.  Religions  were  many,  differing  not  ditions- 
alone  in  service  and  customs  in  different  lands,  but  also  in 
the  names  and  characters  of  the  gods  and  goddesses  who 
dwelt  in  the  mythological  heavens.  Their  literature  was  an 
aggregation  of  myth  and  fable,  here  and  there  underlaid  by 
a  more  or  less  recondite  philosophy.  But  of  institutional 
character,  with  system  of  doctrine,  and  channels  of  settled 
polity,  the  religion  was  entirely  destitute.  Making  no  pre- 
tence to  a  divine  statement  or  foundation,  the  religion  of  a 
people  was  at  the  caprice  of  superstition  and  of  the  con- 
ditions of  life  under  various  climes.  Out  of  the  cold 
north,  sterile  and  forbidding,  issued  Odin  and  Thor,  with  their 
hammer  and  fire ;  while  Aphrodite,  rising  from  the  southern 
sea,  invited  the  lusts  of  Olympus.  In  the  far  east,  the 
Persian  and  Vedantic  philosophies  reached  to  immensely 
higher  principles  and,  discoursing  on  the  meaning  of  life, 
sought  to  nurture  the  moral  powers  of  men.  But  in  all  there 
was  no  such  thing  as  systematized  organization,  nothing  that 
resembled  the  embodied  Church.  What  religious  institutions 


22  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

existed  in   any  land  were  the   creation  of   the  governing 
power,  i 

It  was  only  when  Christ  came,  establishing  a  kingdom  in 
the  world,  which  should  be  amid  the  kingdoms  of  earth  and 
as  leaven  penetrate  throughout  them  all,  and  yet  saying,  "  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  that  the  possibility  arose  of 
any  such  question  as  that  of  the  mutual  relations  of  Church 
and  State. 

^"1  The  question,  indeed,  did  not  come  to  expression  at  the 
'beginning  of  the  Church.  The  conditions  of  the  problem 
required  the  existence,  side  by  side,  of  the  two  institutions  of 
Church  and  State,  each  recognizing  the  other,  and  each  having 
an  inherent  right  to  be  and  to  exercise  its  functions,  with 
more  or  less  of  independence,  according  as  the  prevalent 
solution  or  compact  should  decide.  But  such  conditions  did 
not  obtain  during  the  first  three  centuries  of  the  Church. 
The  state  did  not  recognize  the  Church,  seeing  in  it  no  in- 
stitution with  inherent  right  to  be.  Its  very  existence  was 
v!an  infraction  of  the  imperial  edict  against  associations.  Its 
assemblies  were  simply  gatherings  of  the  followers  of  a 
pestilent  and  dangerous  doctrine,  which  should  be  forbidden 
and  destroyed  —  a  religio  illicita.  Thus,  for  three  hundred 
years  the  only  relation  between  the  two  was  that  of  disapproval 
and  denunciation  by  the  civil  power,  asserting  itself  with 
varying  intensity  as  the  dispositions  of  successive  emperors 
desired ;  now  in  long  periods  of  inactive  contempt,  and  again 
in  waves  of  most  cruel  and  widespread  persecution. 

Meanwhile,  the  doctrine  spread  itself  throughout  the  empire ; 
"  So  mightily  the  word  of  God  grew  and  prevailed." l  It 
penetrated  among  all  the  provinces,  claimed  its  votaries  in  the 
imperial  palace,  honey-combed  the  army,  and  counted  its  ad- 
herents by  the  hundred  thousand. 

It  had  founded,  also,  and  elaborated  a  permanent  polity  and 
order  with  episcopal  and  presbyterial  powers,  vigorous  with 
life,  —  an  organization  that  had  clearly  come  into  the  world  to 

i  Acts  xix,  20. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  23 

stay,  and  making  no  secret  of  its  mission  and  desire  to  re- 
claim that  world  to  the  service  of  its  own  Master.  Never  was 
an  aim  more  glorious  and  never  a  progress  more  magnificent. 
Undeterred  by  the  prohibitions  of  law  or  the  cruelties  of  fire 
and  sword,  bearing  the  burden  of  persecution  without  a 
thought  of  violent  resistance,  it  yet  lifted  up  its  testimony  for 
Christ  after  so  persuasive  fashion,  that  it  were  difficult  to  tell 
whether  at  the  end  of  the  third  century  the  people  of  the 
Roman  Empire  were  more  heathen  or  Christian. 

Out  of  either  the  recognition  or  the  fear  of  this  situation 
came  the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  the  last  of  the  persecutions  Diocletian, 
and  the  most  severe  in  its  terms  and  acts.  In  this  it  was  like 
the  dying  throes  of  a  monster,  whose  bitterness  of  spirit 
increases  as  his  power  wanes.  In  the  year  303  Diocletian 
issued  a  series  of  edicts,  the  terms  of  which  indicate  the 
despairing  and  yet  determined  effort  to  root  out  every  vestige 
of  the  Christian  faith  and  Church.  "  By  these  enactments  all 
Christian  assemblies  were  prohibited ;  all  churches  were  to  be 
demolished ;  all  copies  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  burned ;  all 
Christians  who  held  rank  or  office  to  be  degraded ;  all  of 
whatever  rank  to  lose  their  citizenship,  and  be  liable  like 
slaves  to  the  torture  ;  Christian  slaves  were  to  be  incapable 
of  receiving  freedom ;  all  bishops  and  clergy  were  to  be  thrown 
into  prison  and  there  compelled  to  sacrifice ;  and  all  Christians 
everywhere  ordered  publicly  to  worship  the  gods,  under  the 
usual  penalty  of  torture  and  death."1 

The  severity  of  these  edicts  marks  the  extreme  of  imperial 
proscription,  giving  way  in  a  few  years  to  a  liberal  policy  of 
toleration  equally  extreme  and  sudden.     This  change  of  atti-  Toleration 
tude  and  disposition  is  indicated  by  the  edict  of  Galerius  in  of  Galenus- 
the  year  311,  which  at  once  put  an  end  to  persecution,  and 
opened  the  new  era  of  toleration  and  freedom.     The  edict, 
while  declaring  the  purity  of  motive,  "  to  regulate  everything 
according  to  the  ancient  laws  and  public  discipline  of  the 
Romans,"  as  a  justifying  reason  for  the  persecution,  at  the 
1  Innes,  Church  and  State,  p.  19. 


24  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

same  time  acknowledges  that  the  Christians  had  become  so 
numerous  and  were  so  tenacious  of  their  faith,  as  to  render 
futile  all  efforts  towards  the  repression  of  their  religion. 
Therefore,  the  edict  recites,  "  We  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  most  frank  and  open  toleration  should  be  ex- 
tended to  them,  to  the  effect  that  they  may  now  again  be 
allowed  to  be  Christians,  and  gather  together  in  their  societies ; 
provided,  however,  that  they  take  no  action  against  the  re- 
ligion of  the  State."  l 

This  was  a  long  step  towards  the  freedom  of  the  Church, 
a  complete  liberty  of  conscience  and  worship  to  whomsoever 
should  elect  to  be  Christian.  Christianity,  long  proscribed, 
now  takes  its  place  by  the  side  of  Judaism  as  a  religio  licita. 

But  not  long  did  it  remain  in  such  condition  of  humble 
sufferance  by  a  heathen  power.  The  strides  by  which  the 
x^vhurch  passed  from  the  state  of  bondage  to  that  of  emancipa- 
tion, and  thence  to  empire,  were  few  and  rapid.  Hardly  had 
Galerius  published  his  edict  of  toleration  when  death  removed 
Constantino,  him  from  the  throne ;  and  in  the  next  year,  312,  Constantine, 
having  conquered  his  rival  Maxentius  in  the  battle  of  the 
Milvian  Bridge,  ascended  the  throne  as  sole  emperor  of  the 
west.  It  is  in  the  night  before  the  battle  that  legend  places 
the  vision  of  the  cross  with  its  motto,  "  In  hoc  signo  vinces." 
However  much  truth  the  legend  holds,  it  seems  to  be  the  fact 
that  in  the  battle  the  soldiers  of  Constantine  bore  a  banner 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross.  Without  any  such  vision  it  might 
well  be  that  such  banner  should  appear  in  an  army,  a  large 
constituency  of  which  was  Christian,  while  Constantine  him- 
self was  disposed,  not  only  to  toleration,  but  to  the  Christian 
faith. 

Educated  in  the  principles  of  Neo-Platonism,  he  had  no 
faith  in  the  gods  of  Rome  and  Greece,  and  was  ready  to  accord 
to  Christianity  a  broad  and  philosophic  tolerance  at  the  very 
outset  of  his  career.  His  high  order  of  statesmanship  at  once 
recognized  it  as  an  element  to  be  reckoned  with,  not  with  the 

1  Innes,  p.  22. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  25 

sword  of  repression,  but  with  such  enactments  of  law  as  should 
assert  its  right  to  come  into  the  public  life,  and  to  open  for  its 
doctrine  the  fullest  freedom  of  speech  and  discipleship.  Nor 
was  it  long  before  his  own  mind,  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
that  doctrine,  led  him  to  give  the  adhesion  of  his  personal 
faith. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  while  the  edict  of  Galerius  gave  to 
Christianity  the  fullest  toleration,  yet  Paganism  still  remained 
the  religion  of  the  state,  the  established  religion,  so  far  as  the 
thought  of  establishment  can  be  applied  to  the  situation. 
This  condition  continued  but  two  years.  In  the  year  313  Con- 
stantine  met  at  Milan  Licinius,  the  emperor  of  the  east,  and  then 
the  two  monarchs  issued  the  famous  proclamation  known  as  the 
"  Edict  of  Milan."  By  this  edict  was  established  the  fullest  Edict  of 
toleration  of  all  religions  and  freedom  of  worship,  without  Milan> 
hindrance  from  the  state  and  without  preference  by  the  state 
of  one  religion  before  another.  Its  terms  are  most  broad  and 
explicit.  It  gives  "  both  to  the  Christians  and  to  all  others  free 
power  of  following  whatever  religion  each  man  may  have 
preferred.  .  .  .  The  absolute  power  is  to  be  denied  to  no  one 
to  give  himself  either  to  the  worship  of  the  Christians,  or  to 
that  religion  which  he  thinks  most  suited  to  himself,  .  .  . 
that  each  may  have  the  free  liberty  of  the  worship  which  he 
prefers ;  for  we  desire  that  no  religion  may  have  its  honor 
diminished  by  us."  The  edict  not  only  declares  this  freedom 
of  the  individual  conscience  and  worship,  but  accords  it  to  all 
religious  associations  and  institutions,  and  in  addition  ordains 
that  the  losses  of  property  sustained  by  the  Churches  in  the 
recent  persecutions  should  be  made  good  to  them. 

By  this  edict  was  "introduced  a  universal  and  uncondi- 
tional religious  freedom,"  in  the  enactment  of  which,  as 
Innes  remarks,  "  two  points  are  to  be  noticed :  1st.  It  was 
the  chief  act  of  disestablishment  in  history.  Paganism  was 
disestablished  throughout  the  Empire.  2d.  No  religion  is 
established  by  it."  x 

1  Church  and  State,  p.  25. 


26 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY 


Proclama- 
tion to  the 
Peoples  of 
the  East. 


This  may  be  recognized  as  the  ordination  of  the  fullest 
religious  liberty  the  world  has  known  until  the  foundation 
of  the  American  republic.  Its  enactment  is  one  of  the 
marvels  of  history,  so  diverse  from  all  that  had  preceded  and 
from  all  that  followed.  Its  continuance  of  the  policy  was 
short  lived,  enduring  but  little  longer  than  a  single  generation, 
but  it  remains  an  object-lesson  to  all  subsequent  history. 

Though  the  edict  of  Milan  was  issued  in  the  name  of  both 
emperors,  it  expressed  the  will  of  Constantine  alone,  whose 
greater  force  of  character  had  overborne  Licinius.  Despite 
this  enforced  consent  of  Licinius  to  the  principles  of  tolera- 
tion, he  remained  attached  to  the  pagan  religion,  and  in  his 
own  dominion  of  the  east  took  many  measures  hostile  to 
religious  freedom  and  to  Christianity.  He  encouraged  the 
exercise  of  heathen  worship  and  endeavored  to  suppress  the 
Christian,  sentencing  many  Christians  to  exile  and  slavery. 
This  anti-Christian  attitude  of  Licinius  served  as  fuel  to  the 
flame  of  jealousy  between  Constantine  and  himself,  and 
became  a  strong  cause  of  the  war  between  the  two  emperors, 
which  broke  out  in  323,  and  in  which  Constantine  completely 
destroyed  the  power  of  Licinius,  uniting  in  his  own  person 
the  empire  of  the  entire  Roman  world. 

He  was  now  in  a  position  to  give  world-wide  effect  to  his 
views  of  religious  policy.  Himself  more  pronouncedly  Christ- 
tian  than  in  the  past,  confessing  his  faith  in  God  and  in 
Jesus  Christ,  he  yet  stands  clear  from  all  narrowness  of  view 
as  to  individual  liberty  of  religion.  At  once  that  he  assumed 
the  sovereignty  of  the  empire  of  Licinius  he  issued  the  famous 
"  Proclamation  to  the  Peoples  of  the  East,"  in  which  he 
emphasized  the  principles  of  toleration  in  the  edict  of  Milan, 
and  explained  them  with  larger  and  more  exact  detail.  The 
form  of  the  proclamation  is  unique.  It  is  not  couched  in  the 
ordinary  terms  of  a  governmental  edict,  but  in  the  forms  of 
religious  address,  conveying  the  expression  of  the  emperor's 
own  faith  and  the  religious  reasons  which  controlled  his 
action.  Thus,  the  immediate  address  of  the  edict  is  not  to 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  27 

the  people,  but  to  God  Himself,  and  it  becomes  on  the  part 
of  Constantine  a  covenant  with  God  for  the  policy  his  gov- 
ernment assumes  towards  questions  of  religion.  The  specially 
significant  passages  to  be  here  cited  are  as  follows :  — 

"I  hasten,  O  God,  to  put  my  shoulder  to  the  work  of 
restoring  Thy  most  holy  house,  which  profane  and  impious 
princes  have  marred  by  their  violence.  But  I  desire  that  my 
people  should  live  at  peace  and  in  concord,  and  that  for  the 
common  good  of  the  world  and  for  the  advantage  of  man- 
kind. Let  the  followers  of  error  enjoy  the  same  peace  and 
security  with  those  who  believe  :  this  very  restoration  of  com- 
mon privileges  will  be  powerful  to  lead  men  towards  the  road 
of  truth.  Let  no  one  molest  his  neighbor.  What  the  soul  of 
each  man  counsels  him,  that  let  him  do.  Only  let  men 
of  sound  judgment  be  assured  that  those  alone  will  live  a  life 
of  holiness  and  purity  whom  Thou  callest  to  find  rest  in  Thy 
holy  laws.  But  for  the  others,  who  keep  apart  from  us,  let 
them,  if  they  please,  retain  the  temples  of  falsehood.  We 
have  the  resplendent  house  of  Thy  truth  given  us  as  our 
inheritance.  But  this  we  pray  for  them  also,  that  they  may 
come  to  share  the  gladness  of  a  common  belief.  .  .  .  Let  all 
men  henceforth  enjoy  the  privilege  placed  within  our  reach, 
i.e.  the  blessing  of  peace  ;  and  let  us  keep  our  consciences 
far  from  what  might  hinder  it.  Whatever  truth  a  man  has 
received  and  been  persuaded  of,  let  him  not  smite  his  neigh- 
bor with  it.  Rather,  whatever  he  has  himself  seen  and 
understood,  let  him  help  his  neighbor  with  it,  if  that  is  pos- 
sible ;  if  it  is  not,  let  him  desist  from  the  attempt.  For  it  is 
one  thing  to  voluntarily  undertake  to  wrestle  for  immortality ; 
it  is  another  to  constrain  others  to  it  by  fear.  These  are  my 
words,  and  I  have  enlarged  on  this  more  than  my  forbear- 
ance would  have  prompted,  because  I  was  unwilling  that  my 
trust  in  the  true  faith  should  remain  secret  and  hidden."  1 

The  terms  of  this  proclamation  leave  nothing  to  be  desired, 
and  the  reader  of  it  is  impressed  alike  by  its  breadth  and  the 

1  Innes,  p.  30. 


28  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

deep  spiritual  insight  it  declares.  That  the  privilege  of  free- 
dom would  "lead  men  towards  the  road  of  truth";  that  "to 
constrain  by  fear  "  is  no  proper  means  of  conversion ;  and  that 
conscience  demands  for  all  men  what  it  demands  for  itself ; 
are  truths  which  speak  to  us  out  of  the  turmoil  of  the  fourth 
century  with  startling  accents,  soon  condemned  to  silence 
until  fourteen  hundred  years  should  give  them  voice  again, 
in  a  far  distant  land. 

For  the  most  part  Constantine  adhered  to  this  policy  of 
religious  liberty  with  admirable  consistency.  The  most  glaring 
infraction  was  legislation  against  conversion  to  Judaism, 
threatening  such  converts  with  "  deserved  pains."  This  was 
accompanied  by  the  denunciation  of  death  to  Jews  for  stoning 
converts  from  their  own  faith  to  Christianity  and  may  be 
looked  upon  as  reprisal  for  their  persecuting  actions.  More- 
over, it  was  issued  in  the  year  315,  after  the  edict  of  Milan, 
but  eight  years  before  the  broader  Proclamation  to  the  Peoples 
of  the  East. 

Undoubtedly  the  strong  moral  influence  of  Constantine  was 
exerted  for  the  furtherance  of  Christianity.  He  founded 
Constantinople  on  the  site  of  old  Byzantium  as  a  Christian 
city.  He  turned  "  to  Christian  uses  the  revenues  of  some  of 
the  less  frequented  heathen  temples."  He  presided  in  Church 
councils  and  often  brought  his  personal  power  to  bear  in  the 
decision  of  controversies  in  the  Church.  But  he  never 
attempted  to  constrain  the  religious  preferences  of  his  sub- 
jects, never  forbade  heathen  sacrifices  or  service,  and  never 
established  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  state. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  true  that  his  personal  influence 
towards  the  furtherance  of  the  Christian  faith  had  been  so 
constantly  exerted,  that  the  whole  moral  weight  of  govern- 
ment, devoid  of  all  enactment,  was  thrown  into  that  scale. 
Beyond  that  he  could  not  go.  Of  a  profoundly  philosophical 
habit  of  mind,  he  was  far  removed  from  the  disposition  of  the 
persecutor.  He  reverenced  not  only  the  majesty,  but  the 
dignity  of  human  nature,  and  though  with  advancing  years 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  29 

his  own  persuasion  of  the  Christian  truth  became  constantly 
firmer,  he  yet  maintained  and  defended  the  rights  of  the  in- 
dividual conscience.  This  makes  the  attitude  of  Constantine 
altogether  unique  in  history,  until  it  is  resembled  by  Williams 
and  American  statesmen  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Desirous 
as  a  Christian  ruler  that  all  his  subjects  should  be  enlightened 
by  the  gospel,  he  yet  never  resorted  to  his  imperial  power  to 
force  that  issue,  recognizing  the  fundamental  truth,  to  which ; 
the  following  centuries  were  blind,  that  only  by  the  inner 
persuasion  of  the  mind  could  the  truth  prevail. 

It  was  impossible  that  the  successors  of  Constantine  should 
have  equally  broad  conceptions.  Of  far  lower  powers,  to 
them  the  personal  addiction  of  their  father  to  the  Christian 
faith  seemed  by  logical  and  natural  consequence  to  demand 
resort  to  power  for  its  advancement,  and  to  those  measures  of 
repression  and  enactment  from  which  he  had  scrupulously 
abstained.  He  died  A.D.  337,  leaving  the  throne  to  his  sons 
Constans  and  Constantius,  who  almost  at  once  began  to  draw 
upon  their  imperial  power  to  discourage  paganism  and  advance 
the  Christian  doctrine.  Thus,  four  years  after  their  father's 
death,  they  issued  the  first  decree  against  the  old  religion ; 
"Let  superstition  cease;  let  the  madness  of  sacrifices  be  Repression 
abolished."  In  353  Constantius  alone  ordered  that  all  the  ?f  Heathen- 

ism. 

heathen  temples  should  be  closed,  saying,  "  We  will  that  all 
abstain  from  sacrifices :  if  any  be  found  doing  otherwise,  let 
him  be  slain  with  the  sword."  l 

The  natural  issue  of  such  policy  was  the  formal  establishment 
of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  state,  but  it  was  delayed 
for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  A  slight  reaction  followed  under 
Julian,  whose  preferences  for  the  pagan  religion  endeavored 
to  make  themselves  felt,  though  the  shortness  of  his  reign 
hindered  his  efforts  from  their  desired  effectiveness.  His  suc- 
cessors, Jovian  in  the  east  and  Valentinian  in  the  west,  reas- 
serted the  just  balance  instituted  by  Constantine,  and  not 
until  380  did  the  Christian  doctrine  assume  the  purple.  In 

1  Innes,  p.  33. 


30 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Establish- 
ment of 
Christian- 
ity. 


Ambrose. 


that  year  Theodosius  the  Great,  being  baptized,  accompanied 
the  confession  of  his  personal  faith  with  a  decree  establishing 
Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  whole  empire.  This  edict, 
in  which  Gratian  and  Valentinian  were  associated  with  Theo- 
dosius,  declared,  "  We  will  that  all  the  nations  who  are  ruled 
over  by  our  moderation  and  clemency,  shall  cultivate  and 
exercise  that  religion  which  the  divine  Apostle  Peter  origi- 
nally introduced  and  has  since  handed  down  to  the  inhabitants 
of  Rome,  and  which  is  publicly  professed  by  the  Pontiff 
Damasus  and  by  Peter,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  .  .  .  the  be- 
lief of  the  one  God-head  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  under  an  equal  majesty  and  under  a 
pious  trinity,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospels.  .  .  .  Those  who  follow  this  doctrine 
we  authorize  to  assume  the  name  of  Catholic  Christians  ;  and 
all  others,  judging  them  to  be  senseless  and  insane,  we 
ordain  to  bear  the  infamy  of  holding  heretical  dogma;  nor 
must  their  congregations  assume  the  name  of  Churches.  On 
the  contrary,  they  must  expect  to  be  visited  first  by  the  divine 
vengeance,  and  then  by  that  also  of  the  authority  which 
we  have  received  from  the  will  of  heaven."  1 

The  senate  of  Rome,  which  city  remained  predominantly 
heathen,  urged  upon  the  emperors  that  liberty  of  sacrifice 
should  be  allowed  to  the  Romans.  This,  it  would  seem,  they 
were  at  first  disposed  to  grant,  but  gave  way  to  the  argument 
of  the  celebrated  Ambrose  of  Milan :  "  Wrong  is  done  to 
none  of  your  subjects  when  Almighty  God  is  preferred  before 
him.  To  Him  belong  your  convictions,  and  you  must  carry 
them  out.  ...  If  you  advise  pagan  sacrifices,  if  you  decree 
sacrifices  on  the  Roman  altars  you  really  offer  those  sacrifices 
yourself ;  and  after  that  idolatry  the  Church  cannot  receive 
you.  Choose ;  for  you  cannot  serve  two  masters."  2 

Thus,  for  the  first  time,  and  that  by  the  most  masterful 
Christian  voice  of  the  age,  was  uttered  the  specious  principle 
that  the  conscience  of  kings  must  be  the  law  to  the  conscience 
1  Innes,  pp.  35,  47.  2  Innes,  p.  37. 


THE   OLD   WORLD  IDEA  31 

of  subjects  ;  that  for  kings  alone  among  men  their  faith  is  as 
well  public  as  personal ;  and  that  upon  them  must  rest 
the  responsibility  for  whatsoever  errors  in  faith  and  practice 
any  of  their  subjects  may  be  guilty  of,  unless  they  exert  their 
authority  for  the  abatement  and  punishment  of  such  errors. 
This  principle  we  shall  see  appearing  in  various  guise,  the  in- 
forming principle  in  all  effective  union  of  Church  and  State, 

The  argument  of  the  great  bishop  was  effective.  The 
desire  of  the  Koman  senate  was  denied ;  and  in  the  next  few 
years  the  emperors  proceeded  to  enforce  their  decree  of  estab- 
lishment. Valentinian,  for  the  west,  in  391  forbade  any  one  to 
"  pollute  himself  by  sacrifices,"  and  punished  the  frequenters 
of  the  temples.  On  the  death  of  Valentinian,  A.D.  392, 
Theodosius  made  a  law  for  the  whole  empire,  defining  sac- 
rificing and  soothsaying  as  public  crimes,  "  like  high  treason." 
Says  Innes  :  "  The  wheel  had  now  come  almost  full  circle  ;  for 
not  only  was  Christianity  now  established,  as  Paganism  had 
been  before,  but  the  open  exercise  of  the  one  religion  was  de- 
clared a  crime  against  the  state  in  the  same  way,  and  even  in 
the  same  words,  in  which  in  the  previous  century  the  law  had 
bent  itself  against  the  profession  of  the  other."  l 

By  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  Christianity  thus  became 
the  religion  of  the  state,  and  the  domain  of  the  one  was  con- 
sidered coterminous  with  the  dominion  of  the  other.  The 
character  of  the  relation  between  the  Church  and  State,  how- 
ever, differed  materially  from  that  which  in  later  centuries 
marked  divisions  in  Christendom  itself.  The  Church  was 
one  in  all  lands,  subject  to  jealousies  and  rivalries  of  contend- 
ing episcopal  jurisdictions.  It  was  subject  also  to  heresies, 
which  precipitated  fierce  disputes  and  demanded  ecumenical 
councils,  and  in  the  settlement  of  which  the  imperial  govern- 
ment often  exercised  its  power.  Even  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  Christianity  the  authority  of  the  emperors  had 
been  invoked.  The  councils  of  Nicsea,  Ephesus,  and  Chalce- 
don,  were  called  by  imperial  rescripts,  their  decrees  largely 
1  Church  and  State,  p.  38. 


32  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

shaped  by  the  emperor's  sympathies  and  enforced  by  his 
authority.  The  exile  and  recall  of  Arius  and  of  Athanasius 
illustrate  the  varying  sympathies  of  the  throne  and  the  effec- 
tiveness of  its  interference.  A  like  illustration  is  seen  in  the 
progress  of  the  Donatist  controversy  through  its  century  of 
strife.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  these  interferences  were  on 
the  appeal  of  the  Church,  without  which  appeal  the  emperors 
did  not  assume  to  intervene  until  after  the  Christian  estab- 
lishment. 

Even  then  the  controlling  attitude  was  that  of  a  Christian 
empire  facing  the  heathenism  out  of  which  itself  had  lately 
emerged,  covenanted,  not  to  the  maintenance  of  one  distinc- 
tive Christian  Church  among  others  —  for  there  were  no  others 
— but  to  the  maintenance  of  the  general  Christian  faith  as 
against  all  the  forms  of  heathenism,  which  it  doomed  to  extir- 
pation. With  the  arms  of  the  empire  went  the  preacher 
of  the  cross.  Far  in  advance  of  its  legions  the  Christian 
apostles  penetrated  into  the  north  and  west.  In  the  wreck  of 
the  western  empire  the  Church  maintained  its  seat  and  sub- 
dued to  its  faith  the  Gothic  hordes.  Goth,  Visigoth,  Vandal, 
Frank,  alike  bowed  to  the  majesty  of  the  faith.  The  empire 
of  the  west  owed  its  continuity  to  the  Church,  and  remained 
Christian  against  all  forms  of  invading  paganism. 

For  centuries  the  relation  between  Church  and  State  was 
Alliance.  one  rather  of  alliance  and  mutual  helpfulness  than  of  organic 
union.  The  two  institutions  existed  side  by  side,  for  the 
.  most  part  mutually  independent  as  to  functions  and  order, 

the  one  not  attempting  interference  with  those  matters  which 
were  peculiarly  the  property  of  the  other.  Held  in  the  bond 
of  a  common  faith,  each  contented  itself  with  such  measure 
of  influence  on  the  other  as  would  secure  from  the  crown  the 
exercise  of  power  in  defence  of  the  Church,  and  from  the 
Church  the  voice  of  spiritual  authority  to  constrain  peoples 
to  obedience  and  rulers  towards  righteous  enactments. 

But  the  seeds  were  early  sown,  which  in  later  years  should 
blossom  and  bear  fruit  in  those  colossal  struggles  between  the 


THE   OLD   WORLD  IDEA  33 

two  which  make  up  the  history  of  mediaeval  Europe.  When 
the  empire  had  just  declared  itself  Christian  the  great  Augus-  Augustine, 
tine  came  to  his  African  bishopric ;  and  while  that  transition 
was  yet  new  and  was  seeking  ways  of  legitimate  expression,  — __ 
he  was  employing  all  the  powers  of  his  profound  and  subtle 
mind  and  all  the  energies  of  his  fervid  heart  in  defining  both 
the  terms  of  Christian  doctrine  and  the  relationship  of  the 
Church  to  the  state.  Incontestably  the  greatest  of  the  early 
fathers,  his  influence  on  the  human  mind  has  been  more  pro- 
found and  enduring  than  that  of  any  other  man  since  the  day 
of  Paul.  The  Augustinian  theology  still  holds  the  faith  and 
affections  of  millions,  while  the  Augustinian  view  of  the  "  City 
of  God  "  remains  to  this  day  the  chief  ground  for  every  sys- 
tem of  union  between  Church  and  State.  His  theory  of  the 
new  civic  and  religious  system  revealed  in  the  Church,  as  it 
is  embosomed  in  society  and  the  state,  has  proved  the  most 
elastic  of  human  speculations  and  capable  of  endless  appli- 
cations. Denning  "  the  duty  of  the  powers  of  earth  to  but- 
tress the  invisible  City  of  God,"  it  laid  the  foundation  for  all 
religious  persecution  in  subsequent  ages.  It  was  seized  on 
by  the  papacy  as  the  strongest  weapon  for  ecclesiastical 
aggrandizement.  In  the  age  of  the  Reformation  it  was 
accepted  as  axiomatic  by  all  the  Reformed  Churches ;  and  in 
this  dawn  of  the  twentieth  century  every  religious  establish- 
ment must  appeal  to  it  as  justifying  its  principles  and  methods. 
While  the  great  African  bishop  was  thus  laying  the  foun- 
dation for  all  after  efforts  towards  ecclesiastical  imperialism, 
and  all  appeals  of  the  Church  to  the  secular  arm  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  faith  and  suppression  of  heresy,  there  very  early 
appeared  another  element  —  the  widening  of  the  episcopal  Episcopal 
jurisdiction.  In  the  circumstances  of  the  time  this  was  a  I 
matter  almost  of  necessity.  Though  the  empire  had  established 
the  Christian  religion,  and  had  thrown  its  powerful  influence 
towards  the  furtherance  of  the  faith,  it  had  yet  taken  no 
legislative  action  for  the  support  of  the  Church.  After  that 
establishment,  as  before,  the  financial  support  of  the  Church 


34  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

came  from  individual  benefactions,  the  difference  being  that, 
while  formerly  such  benefactions  had  been  forbidden,  under 
the  Christian  empire  they  were  both  allowed  and  encouraged. 
To  this  were  added  the  frequent  gifts  of  imperial  favor ;  many 
times,  indeed,  drawn  from  the  public  treasury,  but  bestowed 
in  the  name  of  the  emperor.  For  Christian  uses,  under  the 
control  of  the  Church,  were  also  appropriated  the  confiscated 
revenues  of  many  heathen  temples. 

Thus,  though  not  for  centuries  arose  the  legislative  taxation, 
or  tithe,  for  the  support  of  religious  institutions,  there  soon 
came  into  the  possession  of  the  Church  large  funds  and  en- 
dowments, which,  either  by  the  tacit  consent  or  the  direction 
of  the  emperor,  were  committed  to  the  care  and  administration 
of  the  bishops,  whose  duties  and  powers  connected  therewith 
added  a  semi-civic  function  to  the  religious  character  of  their 
office.  To  this  chamberlainship  the  bishops  soon  aspired  to 
add  judicial  powers,  especially  in  all  cases  in  which  the  rights 
of  the  clergy,  either  general  or  individual,  were  involved. 
In  the  vast  majority  of  instances,  especially  in  the  western 
empire,  such  an  episcopal  court  was  not  only  desirable,  but 
also  necessitated;  for  in  that  chaotic  condition  of  society 
which  followed  the  irruption  of  the  northern  hordes,  the  only 
hope  of  wisdom  or  justice  was  found  in  the  Church. 

But  while  this  grafting  of  civil  function  on  the  episcopal 
office  may  thus  be  considered  a  necessity  of  the  age,  at  the 
same  time  it  is  evident  as  a  foundation  for  those  lofty  am- 
bitions which  afterwards  moulded  the  papal  policy.  Here  is 
the  seed  of  that  ecclesiastical  arrogance  which  for  centuries 
refused  to  the  civil  law  the  right  of  judgment  upon  offences 
by  the  clergy.  Here,  also,  is  the  seed  of  that  tremendous 
struggle  over  the  right  of  investiture,  which  convulsed  the 
eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries.  In  view  of  the  growth  of 
episcopal  power  with  functions  reaching  into  civil  and  ju- 
dicial IHattel5:..it  was  inevitable  that  the  bishfp  should  become 
in  certain  important  particulars  an  officer  of  the  state,  in 
whose  appointment  the  emperor  should  claim  to  be  considered 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  35 

as  having  authority.  This  claim  the  Church,  as  it  grew  in 
power  and  ambition,  was  increasingly  ready  to  resist,  until  at 
Canossa  it  obtained  its  greatest  triumph. 

Meanwhile,  the  Church  of  the  west  was  the  saviour  of  The  Church 
society.  In  the  downfall  of  the  empire  and  the  wreck  of  all  gociety. 
social  and  civil  institutions,  towards  the  Church  alone  turned 
the  hopes  of  men,  the  only  stable  thing  in  the  midst  of  uni- 
versal ruin,  the  only  anchor  in  the  storm.  It  was  a  city  of 
refuge  for  the  fugitive  and  the  oppressed.  It  listened  to  the 
cry  of  the  afflicted.  It  stretched  out  the  hand  of  authority  or 
uttered  the  voice  of  persuasion,  to  check  many  turbulences 
and  to  make  many  crooked  things  straight.  As  society  recast 
itself  after  the  violence  of  the  storm,  the  moulding  hand  of  the 
Church  was  everywhere  present,  as  the  sole  possessor  of  light 
and  knowledge,  the  constant  witness  for  law  and  righteousness. 

"  Though  the  tone  of  the  Church  remained  humble,  her 
strength  waxed  greater,  nor  were  occasions  wanting  which 
revealed  the  future  that  was  in  store  for  her.  The  resistance 
and  final  triumph  of  Athanasius  proved  that  the  new  society 
could  put  forth  a  power  of  opinion  such  as  had  never  been 
known  before;  the  abasement  of  Theodosius,  the  emperor, 
before  Ambrose,  the  archbishop,  admitted  the  supremacy  of 
spiritual  authority.  In  the  decrepitude  of  old  institutions,  in 
the  barrenness  of  literature  and  the  feebleness  of  art,  it  was 
to  the  Church  that  the  life  and  feelings  of  the  people  sought 
more  and  more  to  attach  themselves ;  and  when  in  the  fifth 
century  the  horizon  grew  black  with  clouds  of  ruin,  those  who 
watched  with  despair  or  apathy  the  approach  of  irresistible 
foes,  fled  for  comfort  to  the  shrine  of  a  religion  which  even 
those  foes  revered. 

"But  that  which  above  all  we  are  concerned  to  remark 
here  is,  that  this  Church  system,  demanding  a  more  rigid  uni- 
formity in  doctrine  and  organization,  making  more  and  more 
vital  the  notion  of  a  visible  body  of  worshippers  united  by 
participation  in  the  same  sacraments,  maintained  and  propa- 
gated afresh  the  feeling  of  a  single  Roman  people  throughout 


36  BISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  world.  Christianity  as  well  as  civilization  became  con- 
terminous with  the  Roman  Empire."1 

The  prestige  of  the  Eternal  City  was  also  a  colossal  force, 
both  as  holding  the  veneration  of  the  people  and  directing 

Rome.  the  ambitious  policy  of  the  Roman  bishops.     The  Augustan 

City  had  administered  the  affairs  of  the  empire  in  a  dominion 
which  the  bishops  of  Rome  claimed  as  a  pattern  for  their  own. 
Already,  with  the  proclamation  of  Theodosius,  had  begun  the 
dispute  for  supremacy  between  the  Churches  of  the  east  and 
the  west,  never  settled  indeed  by  any  concord  between  the  two, 
but  confirming  in  the  western  mind  the  claims  of  the  Roman 
see.  Long  before  the  final  rupture,  the  entire  Church  of  the 
west  had  accorded  the  primacy  of  Rome  and  the  universal 
authority  of  its  bishop.  Thus  to  the  evident  tokens  of  in- 
herent power,  on  the  beneficent  action  of  which  the  very  life 
of  society  and  civilization  had  depended,  was  added  the  con- 
scious ambition  to  become  the  vicegerent  of  God  upon  the 
earth.  With  such  inspiration  and  with  a  system  built  up  by 
centuries  of  spiritual  guidance  and  of  wise  statecraft,  Rome 
at  last  presented  an  institution,  with  which,  when  the  kings  of 
the  earth  attempted  to  cross  swords,  the  struggle  was  as  a 
battle  of  the  gods. 

Epochs.  The  periods  of  development  may  be  roughly  noted  as 

follows :  — 

1.  That  of  Alliance,  from  Theodosius  and  Augustine  to 

Gregory  the  Great. 

2.  That  of  ecclesiastical  effort  for  supremacy,  from  Gregory 

the  Great  to  Charlemagne. 

3.  That  of  the  distinct   Supremacy   of  the   State,   from 

Charlemagne  to  Hildebrand. 

4.  That  of  Church  Imperialism,  from  Hildebrand  to  Boni- 

face VIII. 

5.  That  of  Nationalism,  from  the  time  of  Boniface  VIII. 

to  the  present  day. 

1  Bryce,  Holy  Eonian  Empire,  pp.  12,  13. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  37 

The  change  from  one  to  other,  save  as  regards  the  revolu- 
tion wrought  by  Hilde brand,  was  by  slow  steps  and  ever  sub- 
ject to  fluctuations,  with  issues  unsuspected  at  the  beginnings. 
Thus,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  Augustine  divined  the 
historical  sequence  of  his  theories.  His  principles,  that  the 
civil  power  should  constrain  unity  of  faith,  and  should  sub- 
serve the  interest  of  the  Church,  did  not  reveal  at  once  their 
baneful  possibilities.  They  were  potent  in  present  usefulness 
for  the  resettlement  of  society  and  securing  of  peace,  of 
salutary  effect  in  almost  all  applications.  So  long  as  the  two 
institutions,  Church  and  State,  were  content  to  live  in  the 
early  spirit  of  alliance,  each  regardful  for  the  other,  and  each 
practically  independent  in  its  own  internal  administration, 
there  could  arise  few  reasons  for  friction.  These  reasons 
were  brought  forth  when  either  party,  forgetting  the  rights 
and  dignity  of  the  other,  attempted  interference  and  dic- 
tation. 

Out  of  such  attempts  came  the  first  change  in  the  form  of 
the  question  of  Church  and  State,  and  in  the  attitude  of  one 
to  the  other.  No  longer  satisfied  with  a  mutually  respecting 
alliance,  each  sought  a  superiority.  Especially  did  the  Church  Claims  of 
learn  to  resent  and  deny  all  theories  of  equality.  Confessedly  the  ( 
a  divinely  instituted  power,  it  early  claimed  precedence  of 
all  earthly  kingdoms.  Keeper  of  the  king's  personal  con- 
science, it  claimed  direction  of  his  civil  rule.  It  took  to  itself 
the  words  of  Wisdom,  "  By  me  kings  reign,  and  princes  decree 
justice."  (Prov.  viii.  15.)  Thus,  in  the  full  outcome  of  its 
claims,  it  demanded  from  kings  homage  for  their  crowns; 
interfered  at  pleasure  with  the  internal  affairs  of  kingdoms, 
and  even  presumed  to  absolve  from  allegiance  the  subjects  of 
monarchs  bold  enough  to  resist  the  authority  of  the  pope, 
who  affected  to  be  a  king  of  kings.  The  complete  claim  is 
seen  in  Boniface  VIII.  (A.D.  1300),  seated  on  the  throne, 
crowned  with  the  tiara  and  girt  with  a  sword,  exclaiming, 
"I  am  Csesar.  I  am  Emperor."  In  such  increasing  claim 
of  universal  dominion  in  things  secular  as  religious,  the 


38  BISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Church  by  degrees  outlined  and  finally  enforced  an  imperial- 
ism vaster  and  further-reaching  than  that  of  the  proudest 
Caesars. 

For  this  issue  affairs  were  in  long  training  and  with  many 
fluctuations,  until  the  culmination  of  papal  ambition  was 
reached  in  the  audacity  of  Boniface  VIII.  The  beginnings  of 
Gregory  the  it  may  be  found  in  Gregory  the  Great,  who,  coming  to  the 
Great.  pontificate,  A.D.  590,  exercised  vast  influence,  chiefly  moral, 
in  the  pacification  of  political  affairs  in  Italy  and  the  west,  and 
showed  an  example  of  genius  for  government,  which  his  able 
successors  were  not  slow  to  emulate.  The  success  of  their 
pretensions  was  due,  fully  so  much  as  to  their  ability,  to  the 
disorder  of  society  and  the  weakness  of  the  princes.  This 
process  of  papal  aggrandizement  thus  begun,  received  a  long 
and  decided  check  from  the  power  of  Charlemagne,  though  at 
the  same  time  his  benefactions  to  the  Church  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  further  progress. 

Charie-  This  greatest  of  Frankish  kings  had  compacted  under  his 

magne.  sceptre  the  whole  of  western  Europe,  conquered  Italy  and 
Rome,  revived  the  empire  of  the  west,  of  which  in  the  year 
800  he  was,  at  Rome  and  by  the  pope,  crowned  emperor. 
Himself  devoted  to  the  Church,  he  confirmed  the  hierarchical 
system  to  which  he  abandoned  the  government  of  the  Church  ; 
sanctioned  the  canon  law ;  constituted  the  "  States  of  the 
Church,"  as  representing  the  temporal  sovereignty  of  the 
popes ;  and  established  throughout  his  empire  "  the  tithe,  a 
tax  on  land,  one  third  of  which  went  to  support  the  bishops 
and  clergy,  one  third  to  maintain  the  edifices  of  the  Church, 
and  one  third  to  the  poor."  At  the  same  time  he  reserved  to 
himself  the  convoking  of  synods  and  the  confirming  of  their 
actions ;  the  appointment  of  bishops  whom  he  regarded  as 
vassals  of  the  crown  ;  and  the  final  decision  as  to  the  legislation 
of  the  Church. 

Far  in  advance  of  former  rulers,  Charlemagne  asserted  a 
supremacy  of  the  state  over  the  Church,  and  initiated  a  policy 
which  continued  operative  with  more  or  less  effectiveness  for 


THE   OLD  WORLD  IDEA  39 

two  centuries.  He  regarded  his  own  office  as  equally  spiritual 
as  secular,  and  his  empire  as  a  theocracy.  "Among  his  inti- 
mate friends  he  chose  to  be  called  by  the  name  of  David,  ex- 
ercising in  reality  all  the  (theocratic)  powers  of  the  Jewish 
King,  presiding  over  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth." 
"  There  are  letters  of  his  extant,  in  which  he  lectures  Pope 
Leo  in  a  tone  of  easy  superiority,  admonishes  him  to  obey  the 
holy  canons,  and  bids  him  pray  earnestly  for  the  success  of 
the  efforts  which  it  is  the  monarch's  duty  to  make  for  the 
subjugation  of  pagans  and  the  establishment  of  sound  doctrine 
throughout  the  Church.  Nay,  subsequent  popes  themselves 
admitted  and  applauded  the  despotic  superintendence  of 
matters  spiritual  which  he  was  wont  to  exercise,  and  which 
led  some  one  to  give  him  playfully  a  title  that  had  once  been 
applied  to  the  pope  himself,  4  Episcopus  episcoporumS  .  .  . 
Within  his  own  dominions  his  sway  assumed  a  sacred  char- 
acter ;  his  unwearied  and  comprehensive  activity  made  him, 
throughout  his  reign,  an  ecclesiastical,  no  less  than  a  civil, 
ruler;  summoning  and  sitting  in  councils,  examining  and 
appointing  bishops,  settling  by  capitularies  the  smallest  points 
of  Church  discipline  and  polity." l  His  immediate  successors 
were  weak,  and  his  dominions  were  divided  for  nearly  half  a 
century,  but  the  empire  was  reconstituted,  as  the  "Holy 
Roman  Empire,"  in  852,  by  the  Saxon  Otto  the  Great,  who  otto, 
added  to  the  policy  of  Charlemagne  the  demand  that  no  pon- 
tiff should  be  elected  at  Rome  without  the  emperor's  consent. 
This  demand  could  not  be  refused,  and  "  The  pope  became  a 
secular  subject  to  the  emperor."  The  weakness  of  succeed- 
ing Franconian  emperors  suffered  the  papacy  to  fall  under  the 
power  of  Italian  princes  until,  in  1046,  Henry  III.  entered 
Italy  with  an  army,  and  calling  a  synod,  deposed  three  con- 
tending popes  and  secured  for  himself  the  right  of  nomina- 
tion, a  right  exercised  in  the  appointment  of  three  successive 
pontiffs. 

This  marked  the  extreme  of  the  supremacy  of  the  state, 
1  Holy  Roman  Empire,  pp.  64,  66. 


40 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


the  power  of  which  after  the  death  of  Henry,  waned  rapidly, 
in  consequence,  partly  of  the  long  minority  of  Henry  IV. 

Hiidebrand.  and  chiefly  of  the  character  and  power  of  Hildebrand.  Of 
this  pope  writes  Ranke  in  graphic  words  :  "  Gregory  VII.  was 
a  man  of  bold,  bigoted,  and  aspiring  spirit ;  straightforward 
as  a  scholastic  system,  invincible  in  the  stronghold  of  logical 
consequence,  and  no  less  dexterous  in  parrying  just  and  well- 
grounded  objections  with  specious  arguments.  .  .  .  He  resolved 
to  emancipate  the  papal  power  from  the  imperial  yoke.  .  .  . 
The  bond  between  both  was  the  right  of  investiture.  The 
determination  that  this  ancient  right  should  be  wrested  from 
the  emperor  was  of  the  nature  of  a  revolution." l  Hildebrand, 
first  as  counsellor  to  Popes  Victor,  Stephen,  Nicholas  II.,  and 
Alexander  II.,  and  afterwards  as  Gregory  VII.,  was  the  ablest 
of  the  long  line  of  pontiffs.  Taking  advantage  of  the  minor- 
ity of  Henry,  he  succeeded  not  only  in  setting  aside  the 
nomination  of  the  pontiff  by  the  emperor,  but  in  removing 
the  election  of  the  pope  from  the  clergy  and  citizens  of  Rome 
to  the  college  of  cardinals.  Further  than  this,  he  asserted 
the  right  of  the  popes  to  inquire  into  the  civil  administration 
of  the  empire.  This  was  a  tremendous  stride  of  ecclesiastical 
ambition,  for  the  taking  of  which  an  immediate  event  gave 
occasion. 

Henry  iv.  The  young  Henry  had  attained  to  his  majority,  and  in  the 
exercise  of  his  power  had  been  so  arbitrary  that  many  of  his 
subjects  appealed  to  the  pope,  who  summoned  him  to  Rome 
to  answer  the  complaints.  To  this  summons  Henry  replied 
with  a  synod  of  the  German  Church  at  Worms,  which  called 
on  Gregory  to  retire  from  the  pontificate  as  having  abused 
his  office.  Gregory's  response  was  terrific.  Nothing  like  it 
had  ever  been  attempted  by  any  bishop  of  Rome,  and  could 
hope  to  be  effective  only  by  reason  of  the  Church's  hold  upon 
the  mind  and  affection  of  the  people.  He  excommunicated 
Henry  and  released  from  allegiance  all  his  subjects.  Henry 
was  forced  to  submit,  illustrating  his  penitence  by  standing 
1  History  of  the  Popes,  p.  24. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  41 

for  three  days  barefoot  in  the  snow  at  Canossa,  until  the  proud  Canossa. 
Gregory  was  willing  to  receive  his  confession.  It  is  true  that 
this  severity  brought  a  reaction ;  that  Henry's  indignation  at 
this  insulting  treatment  was  shared  in  by  the  majority  of  his 
subjects;  that  he  conquered  Rudolph,  who  with  the  pope's 
approval  had  usurped  his  throne;  and,  invading  Italy,  cap- 
tured Rome  and  shut  up  Gregory  in  the  castle  of  St.  Angelo. 
Thus  Henry  revenged  his  wrongs  and  asserted  his  power. 
But  none  the  less  the  action  of  Gregory  had  given  to  the 
theory  of  state  supremacy  a  shock  from  which  it  never 
recovered.  Though  Gregory,  having  escaped  to  Salerno, 
died  there  in  the  following  year,  his  successors  held  fast  to 
his  claims. 

Closely  allied  thereto  was  the  question  of  investiture.  On  investiture, 
the  one  hand,  the  emperors  claimed  that,  inasmuch  as  bishops 
exercised  many  civil  functions,  and  in  many  cases  were  princes 
with  temporal  jurisdiction,  the  right  of  appointment  and  in- 
vestiture with  the  insignia  of  office  belonged  to  the  crown ; 
and  that  the  pope  was  bound  to  consecrate  to  the  spiritual 
office  the  appointees  of  the  secular  power.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Church  claimed  that,  inasmuch  as  the  episcopal  function 
was  predominantly  spiritual,  the  crown  was  obliged  to  ac- 
quiesce in  such  appointments  as  the  Church  should  make. 
The  state  refused  as  vassals  those  over  whom  it  could  exer- 
cise no  authority ;  and  the  Church  refused  as  spiritual  officers 
those  whose  title  came  from  a  secular  source.  On  this  issue 
battle  royal  was  joined,  the  varying  features  of  which  it  is  not 
needful  here  to  recount.  It  is  only  needful  to  note  that  on 
this,  as  on  other  questions,  the  policy  of  Hildebrand  was 
carried  on  by  his  successors,  to  the  general  triumph  of  the 
ecclesiastical  power. 

The  effective  application  of  that  policy  is  illustrated  in  the 
Emperor  Lothair  holding  the  stirrup  of  Pope  Adrian,  and  in 
many  acts  of  Innocent  III.,  whose  ambition  was  greater  than  innocent  m. 
Hildebrand's  and  whose  exercise  of  power  met  with  less  re- 
sistance.    Innocent  insisted  that  all  kings  should  do  him 


42 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Church 
Supremacy. 


Nation- 
alism. 


homage  for  their  crowns ;  that  their  title  by  inheritance  was 
not  good  until  ratified  by  him.  He  insisted  on  his  right  as 
supreme  lord  to  interfere  in  any  kingdom  for  the  redress  of 
wrong,  himself  being  the  sole  judge.  "  He  excommunicated 
Sweno  for  usurping  the  throne  of  Sweden."  He  laid  an 
interdict  on  Spain,  because  the  king  of  Leon  had  married  his 
cousin.  He  commanded  Philip  to  take  back  his  divorced 
wife,  and  on  the  king's  refusal,  laid  an  interdict  on  all  France. 
All  religious  services  ceased :  "  the  dead  were  unburied ;  the 
living  were  unblessed."  He  threatened  John  of  England  with 
deposition  and  an  interdict,  and  annulled  Magna  Charta.  In 
the  theory  of  Innocent,  all  kings  and  emperors  were  temporal 
vassals  of  the  pope.  "  He  declared  explicitly  that  as  the 
power  and  property  of  the  realm  belonged  to  the  Roman 
Church,  its  vassal-king  could  make  no  change  in  its  condition, 
to  the  Church's  prejudice." l 

This  was  the  high-water  mark  of  Church  supremacy.  It  re- 
mained practically  stationary  for  one  hundred  years,  though 
during  that  period  were  increasing  tokens  that  the  ebb  could 
not  be  long  delayed.  The  second  Frederic  —  a  man  of  great 
powers  and  great  vices  —  carried  on  long  battle  with  Gregory 
IX.  and  Innocent  IV.  Twice  excommunicated,  he  "  appealed 
to  the  indelible  rights  of  Csesar,  and  denounced  his  foe  as  the 
anti-Christ  of  the  New  Testament.  He  scoffed  at  anathema, 
upbraided  the  avarice  of  the  Church,  and  treated  her  soldiery, 
the  friars,  with  a  severity  not  seldom  ferocious."  2  At  the  end 
he  was  forced  to  a  qualified  submission,  and  died  under  the 
ban  of  the  Church. 

The  death  of  Frederic  brought  the  end  of  the  empire  as  a 
world  power,  and  seemed  thus  to  remove  from  the  stage  the 
greatest  obstacle  to  papal  ambition.  In  reality  it  made  way 
for  conditions  which  efficiently  checked  that  ambition,  and 
put  a  term  to  ecclesiastical  supremacy.  The  NATION  was 
beginning  to  appear.  France  and  England,  under  the  rule  of 

1  Innes,  pp.  81,  82. 

2  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  210. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  43 

vigorous  monarchs,  were  presenting  the  spectacle  of  emer- 
gence from  the  confusion  and  rivalries  of  feudalism  into  the 
higher  state  of  national  life,  which  grew  instantly  more  and 
more  impatient  of  papal  dictation.  The  dawn  of  the  Renais- 
sance was  bringing  to  the  mind  glimmerings  of  liberty.  "  It 
was  already  indicative  of  the  dawn  of  the  new  epoch  that  the 
national  languages  arose  everywhere  at  the  same  time. 
Hitherto  the  Church  had  been  predominant  over  the  sense  of 
nationality." l  This  rising  sense  of  a  special,  individual 
national  life,  with  speech  and  aims  of  its  own,  gradually  bred 
a  profound  impatience  of  dictation,  which,  however  religious, 
clearly  demonstrated  the  domination  of  a  foreign  and  selfish 
power.  Men  were  beginning  to  question  the  secular  aims  of 
the  Church,  and  some  to  suspect  even  certain  of  its  religious 
dogmas.  Europe  was  making  its  first  unconscious  move- 
ments, which  were  to  result  in  the  great  upheavals  of  the 
sixteenth  century. 

It  is  in  such  beginnings  of  change  that  we  find  the  reason 
of  the  failure  of  Boniface  VIII.  on  the  field  where  Hilde- 
brand,  Innocent,  and  Gregory  IX.  had  been  successful. 
More  audacious  than  they  all,  he  failed  to  read  the  tokens  of 
changing  times.  When  he  joined  issue  with  Edward  I.  and 
Philip  the  Fair,  he  found  facing  him  wills  strong  as  his  own 
and  peoples  who  refused  to  be  absolved  from  loyalty  by  a 
papal  bull.  On  this  last  factor  he  had  not  counted,  nor 
dreamed  that  the  popular  mind  could  be  less  submissive  to  the 
pontiff's  will  than  in  the  past. 

In  the  struggle  of  Boniface  with  Philip  and  Edward,  a 
struggle  induced  by  his  interference  with  their  taxation  of  the 
clergy,  there  was  brought  to  expression  the  theory  of 
Nationalism.  For  this  St.  Louis  in  his  Pragmatic  Sanction, 
A.D.  1269,  had  prepared  the  way  in  France,  defining  that  the 
election  of  bishops  should  be  free  from  the  control  of  the 
pope,  and  that  no  money  should  be  levied  for  the  pope  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Church  and  king.  This  was  the  first 
1  Ranke,  History  of  the  Popes,  p.  26. 


44  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

assertion  of  what  afterwards  came  to  be  called  "  the  Galilean 
Liberties."  l 

Both  Edward  and  Philip  for  their  respective  kingdoms 
declared  also  their  entire  independence  of  the  pope  in  things 
political,  and  their  right  to  levy  upon  the  already  enormous 
wealth  of  the  clergy.  To  the  remonstrances  of  Boniface  and 
his  threats  of  interdict  and  excommunication  they  paid  no  re- 
gard, in  which  attitude  they  were  sustained  by  the  estates  of 
their  realms.  The  bull,  "Unam  Sanctam,"  declared  that  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  universal  lordship  of  the  pope  was 
necessary  to  salvation.  Philip  publicly  burned  the  bull  and 
declared  his  independence ;  forbade  his  clergy  to  go  to  Rome ; 
imprisoned  the  papal  legate,  a  French  bishop,  for  insolent  be- 
havior and  quoted  the  scripture, "  Render  unto  Csesar  the  things 
which  are  Csesar's."  2  The  battle  was  long,  bequeathed  from 
king  to  king  and  from  pope  to  pope.  Boniface  was  captured  at 
Anagni  by  Philip,  and  never  recovered  from  the  humiliation, 
dying  broken-hearted.  His  ambitious  claims  also  lost  their 
power.  Though  they  were  repeated  by  his  successors  down 
to  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century,  they  were  not 
admitted  or  submitted  to  by  any  considerable  secular  power. 

The  spirit  of  opposition  here  involved  rapidly  assumed 
power  and  wide  influence  in  the  greater  nations.  Beginning 
in  France,  it  spread  to  England,  as  we  have  seen,  where  the 
policy  of  Edward  I.  became  as  a  law  to  the  kingdom,  by 
reason  of  which  the  third  Edward  refused  the  payment  of 
tribute  to  Rome,  and  was  sustained  by  his  parliament. 

1  The  contrast  between  the  papal  claim  and  the  opposing  Gallicanism  is 
very  aptly  drawn  by  Hodge  :  "  The  indirect  power  of  the  papacy  over  civil 
affairs  was  founded  on  the  claim  that  the  Church  only  had  a  right  to  judge 
whether  any  civil  decrees  interfered  with  doctrine  and  discipline."     Church 
Polity,  p.  108.     On  the  other  hand,  the  Gallican  position  claimed  for  the 
king  "  a  right  to  judge  whether  the  acts  or  decisions  of  the  Church  were 
consistent  with  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  state,"  and  that  the  royal 
placet  was  necessary  to  give  them  force  in  his  realm. 

2  Kurtz,  Church  History,  Sec.  110,  156.     Fisher,  Church  History,  p.  240. 
Innes,  p.  94.    Ranke,  p.  26. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  45 

Germany  came  next,  and  "  The  electors  assembled  at  Reuss 
to  concert  measures  in  common  for  manifesting  the  honor 
and  dignity  of  the  empire.'* 

Thus  the  principle  of  nationalism  intrenched  itself  firmly 
in  the  policy  of  states.  The  papal  imperialism  came  to 
an  end.  In  place  of  it  was  the  assertion  of  entire  freedom  of 
the  state  in  all  secular  affairs,  and  the  integrity  of  the 
national  Church,  as  a  branch  of  the  Church  universal,  with 
powers  of  self-government  free  from  the  dictation  of  Rome. 
What  was  further-reaching  than  all  these,  Nationalism  —  or 
Gallicanism  —  as  defined  by  the  assembly  called  by  Louis 
XIV.,  A.  D.  1682,  insisted  that  the  pope  himself  was  subject 
to  the  general  councils,  both  as  to  authority  and  as  to  judg- 
ment in  matters  of  doctrine. 

In  this  long  dispute  the  aid  of  the  schoolmen  was  sought 
by  both  sides.  Their  battle  was  second  only  to  that  of  the 
princes  in  its  fury,  and  had  larger  consequence,  in  that  it 
broke  up  that  lethargy  of  mind  which  had  made  the  schools 
willing  captives  to  the  hierarchy.  William  of  Occam,  the 
"  Invincible  Doctor,"  saying  to  Louis,  "  Defend  me  with  the 
sword  and  I  will  defend  you  with  the  pen ; "  Egidius  de 
Colonna,  and  John  of  Paris,  to  whom  may  be  added  the  im- 
mortal Dante,  opposed  the  extravagant  demands  of  the  papacy 
and  defended  the  independence  of  the  kings. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  this  development  of  nationalism 
no  room  was  made  for  such  a  thing  as  liberty  of  conscience.  NO  Freedom 
The  kings,  who  most  stoutly  resisted  the  pretensions  of  Rome 
to  political  domination,  were  as  fully  bent  on  maintaining  the 
unity  of  the  faith.  The  movement,  undoubtedly,  as  loosening 
the  mind  from  one  of  the  trammels  of  the  past,  had  something 
of  a  casual  relation  to  the  Reformation,  and  certainly  prepared 
a  solution  for  some  of  the  problems  brought  up  by  that  strug- 
gle ;  but  with  that  cardinal  principle  which  lay  at  the  heart 
of  the  Reformation,  the  Right  of  Private  Judgment,  the  new 
nationalism  had  no  sympathy  whatever.  This  is  abundantly 
evidenced  by  the  Spanish  Inquisition ;  the  slaughter  of  the 


46  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Albigenses,  the  death  of  Huss,  and,  most  notably,  the  attitude 
of  Henry  VIII.  of  England,  who,  while  carrying  the  theory 
to  the  furthest  extreme,  abjuring  the  pope  and  making  himself 
head  of  the  Church  of  England,  yet  persecuted  on  the  one 
hand  those  who  maintained  allegiance  to  Rome,  and  on  the 
other  those  who  denied  the  Roman  dogmas. 

It  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  possible  narrowness 
of  human  judgment  that  none  of  the  publicists,  statesmen, 
and  theologians  of  the  Reformation  era,  and  none  of  the 
princes,  save  William  of  Orange,  were  able  to  follow  this 
principle  of  revolt  to  its  logical  issue  in  the  freedom  of  the 
individual  conscience.  While  the  Protestant  disallowed  the 
faith  and  the  authority  of  Rome,  yet  he  insisted  as  stoutly  as 
any  Romanist  that  unity  of  faith  was  essential  to  the  integrity 
of  the  government.  In  despite  of  the  rights  of  mind,  it  was 
the  practical  axiom  of  the  day  that  the  accident  of  birth  and 
political  denizenship  must  control  the  form  and  expression  of 
religious  faith. 

This,  indeed,  needs  emphasis.  While  the  Reformation 
broke  the  power  of  the  papacy  and  severed  some  of  the  nations 
from  the  Roman  Church,  it  did  not  introduce  liberty.  It 
made  a  way  for  liberty  by  which,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  she 
should  come  to  proclaim  the  dignity  and  rights  of  the  in- 
dividual soul.  But  the  recognition  thereof  by  the  princes 
and  governments  delayed  for  more  than  two  centuries,  while 
in  certain  parts  of  Christendom  they  are  not  recognized  to-day. 
The  principle  of  nationalism,  already  denned  as  triumphant 
over  the  papacy  before  the  Reformation,  was  at  once  seized 
upon  by  the  Protestant  princes  as  the  regulative  principle 
which  should  constitute  and  control  ecclesiastical  affairs  in 
their  dominions. 

Protestant-        A  new  element  also  was   added  to  the   old   question  of 

*  Church  and  State.     Hitherto  the  Church  had  been  one,  and 

the  sole  question  had  been  as  to  the  relation  between  this 

one  Church,  having  its  head  at  Rome,  and  the  state.     Now 

is  added  another  question :  Which  Church  shall  be  followed  ? 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  47 

For  the  one  Church  is  broken  asunder,  and  a  new  faith 
presses  itself  upon  the  mind  and  conscience,  demanding  the 
obedience  of  princes  and  peoples.  It  was  given  to  them  to 
choose  — Romanist  or  Protestant  —  which  shall  the  nation  be  ? 
Undoubtedly  the  choice  of  Protestantism  was  dictated  not 
only  by  the  preference  of  princes,  but  as  well  by  their  recog- 
nition of  the  wide  spread  among  their  people  of  the  new  faith ; 
but  once  that  the  choice  was  made,  the  Church  became  a 
national  Church,  in  many  matters  of  control  subject  to  the 
dictation  of  the  state. 

This  is  further  illustrated  by  the  division  in  the  ranks  of 
Protestantism.  While  in  the  past  there  had  been  but  one 
Church,  the  Roman,  known  in  western  Europe ;  and  while 
among  those  nations,  which  after  the  Reformation  remained 
faithful  to  the  Roman  See,  the  Church  was  still  one,  so  that, 
despite  the  claims  of  political  freedom,  the  religious  faith  of 
France,  Spain,  Italy,  and  southern  Germany  was  unified  under 
the  spiritual  organization  of  Rome,  yet  from  the  beginnings 
of  Protestant  ecclesiasticism  the  fact  of  division  appeared. 

The  Protestant  Church  was  not  one.  Though  united  by 
common  sympathy  of  opposition  to  Rome,  the  Lutheran  and  Lutheran 
Reformed  faiths  made  for  themselves  sharp  lines  of  separation  ^ 
from  each  other.1  Thus  the  choice  of  the  Protestant  prince 
called  for  yet  another  decision  —  whether  in  the  Reformation 
he  should  follow  Luther  or  Calvin.  There  was  nothing  like 
organic  union  between  these  two  great  churches  of  the 
Reformation.  More  than  that,  there  was  no  such  union  of 
similar  churches  in  different  countries,  either  Lutheran  or 
Reformed.  There  was  no  organization  common  to  the 
Lutheran  churches  of  Saxony  and  Sweden,  or  to  the  Reformed 
churches  of  Holland  and  Scotland.  Each  Church  of  the 
Reformation  was  distinctly  national.  Says  Ranke,1  "  Religion 
was  diversely  seized  by  the  nations  in  the  several  modifica- 
tions of  its  dogmatic  forms;  the  chosen  body  of  dogmas 
became  blended  with  the  feelings  of  nationality.  It  became 
1  History  of  the  Popes,  p.  327. 


48  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  first  question  respecting  each  country,  What  was  the 
dominant  religion  there  ?  " 

Hence  arose  the  maxim,  universal  in  the  Reformation 
period  and  not  altogether  disallowed  to-day,  succinctly  put 
The  power  into  the  words,  "  Cujus  regio,  ejus  religio"  l  It  defines  the 
of  princes.  d^y  an(j  right  of  the  prince  to  choose  and  direct  the  religion 
for  his  people.  To  this  was  necessarily  added,  as  a  logical 
consequence,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  prince  to  root  out  heresy. 
This  duty  and  right  many  a  Protestant  prince  obeyed,  under- 
standing as  heresy,  not  only  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Rome, 
but  as  well  also  the  differing  views  of  other  forms  of  the 
Protestant  faith,  or  the  reluctance  to  conform  to  the  special 
ecclesiasticism  which  the  prince  had  ordained.  So  the 
Covenanter  was  slain  because  he  could  not  accept  either 
Episcopacy  or  the  National  Kirk,  and  the  Pilgrims  came 
across  the  sea  because  they  could  not  conform. 

The  argument  in  support  of  this  supremacy  of  the  state  was 
very  simple.  Religion  and  morality  were  understood  to  lie 
at  the  foundation  of  the  state,  while  of  morality  religion  was 
the  base.  Therefore  it  became  the  first  duty  of  the  princes 
and  magistrates  to  take  order  for  the  support  of  religion  and 
the  defence  of  its  purity.  It  was  taken  for  granted  that  two 
forms  of  religion,  though  both  might  be  Protestant,  could  not 
,  co-exist  in  the  same  state  without  peril  to  civil  institutions. 
The  Church  throughout  Protestant  Europe  was  thus  shorn  of 
its  divine  character  in  popular  estimation  and  made  an  adjunct 
of  the  state,  while  the  individual  conscience  was  put  outside 
of  the  law.  This  is  true  even  of  the  Scottish  Kirk,  which, 
while  insisting  in  its  symbols  on  the  "alone  Headship  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  at  the  same  time  demanded  the  secular  power 
for  its  own  support,  and  made  itself  an  establishment  under 
the  crown. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  things  in  that  most  marvellous 
age  of  the  Reformation  is  the  tenacity  with  which  the  general 
Protestant  mind  clung  to  the  idea  that  an  intimate  union 
1  **  Whose  is  the  government,  his  is  the  religion." 


THE   OLD   WORLD   IDEA  49 

of  Church  and  State  was  necessary  to  the  purity  of  religion 

and  the  perpetuity  of  government.     This  was  the  universal 

opinion,. the  exceptions  to  which  can  be  counted  on  less  than 

the  fingers  of  one  hand.     It  was  formulated  as  general  law.    » 

The  Peace  of  Augsburg  made  the  religion  of  a  community  Augsburg. 

de terminable  by  the  religion  of  the  prince.     The  ruler  thus 

became  supreme,  with  a  clerical  synod,  or  consistorial  body, 

as  his  advisors.  The  only  relief  to  dissenters  from  the  religion 

of  the  prince  was  that  of  emigration  from  his  dominions.1     So 

long  as  a  man  remained  under  the  rule  of  a  prince  he  was 

bound  to  conform  in  matters  of  religion. 

This  position  of  the  Augsburg  Peace  is  less  liberal  than  that 
of  the  Confession,  and  was  reached  as  a  compromise  between 
Roman  and  Lutheran  princes.  The  Confession,  published 
twenty-five  years  before,  in  1530,  attempted  to  define  the  prac- 
tical independence  of  Church  and  State.  "  The  administra- 
tion of  civil  affairs  has  to  deal  with  other  matters  than  the 
gospel  deals  with.  .  .  .  The  ecclesiastical  and  civil  powers 
are  not  to  be  confounded.  The  ecclesiastical  has  its  own  com- 
mand to  preach  the  gospel  and  to  administer  the  sacraments. 
Let  it  not  intrude  into  the  office  of  another  than  itself."  The 
chief  stress  in  the  distinction  is  laid  upon  the  impropriety  of 
ecclesiastical  interference  in  civil  affairs,  which  was  the  spe- 
cial aspect  of  the  question  at  that  day.  It  fails  to  warn  the 
state  against  interference  with  the  Church,  though  it  in  no 
place  recognizes  that  the  civil  power  has  a  duty  against  heresy, 
In  these  respects  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  far  in  advance 
of  the  later  confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches. 

Written  by  Melanchthon  under  the  influence  of  Luther,  it  is  Luther, 
clearly  expressive  of  their  mind.  Luther  undoubtedly  held 
in  theory  the  independence  and  self-government  of  the  Church, 
but  he  "  considered  the  Germans  too  rough,  turbulent,  and  un- 
practised to  take  ecclesiastical  government  into  their  hands 
at  once."  The  princes,  as  principal  members  of  the  Church, 
should  take  the  lead  and  the  people  must  follow.  In  the  cir- 

i  Fisher,  p.  415. 


50  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

cumstances  of  the  time,  that  was  an  easy  step  by  which  this 
moral  leadership  passed  into  the  requirement  of  conformity. 
Luther  saw  this  and  was  embarrassed  by  it ;  but  he  saw  no  way 
of  escape  from  the  necessity  of  reliance  to  some  extent  upon 
the  civil  power.  The  practical  need  was  enforced  to  his  mind 
by  the  disorders  induced  by  some  of  the  Anabaptists  and  by 
the  Peasants'  War,  which  called  him  from  the  Wartburg.  This 
accounts  for  contradictory  expressions  by  Luther.  In  one 
place  he  says,  "  Whenever  the  temporal  power  presumes  to 
legislate  for  the  soul,  it  encroaches ;  "  and  in  another,  "  Since 
it  is  not  good  that  in  one  parish  the  people  should  be  exposed 
to  contradictory  preaching,  he  (the  magistrate)  should  order 
to  be  silent  whatever  side  does  not  consist  with  the  Scrip- 
ture !  "  Of  course,  this  constitutes  the  magistrate  the  judge 
of  Scripture  and  doctrine,  and  installs  him  as  supreme  in  the 
Church.  Long  before  Luther's  death  the  princes  had  become 
the  real  governors  of  the  Church,  which  was  organized  and 
regulated  entirely  by  their  will.  The  Lutheran  consistory, 
which  governs  the  Church  to-day,  was  organized  in  1540,  a 
body  of  jurists  and  theologians,  appointed  by,  and  responsible 
to,  the  crown,  and  exercising  all  the  powers  of  church  govern- 
ment and  discipline.  Luther  did  not  like  it,  but  he  knew  not 
how  to  mend  it.  "  Satan  remains  Satan,"  he  said.  "  Under 
the  pope  he  pushed  the  Church  into  the  State ;  now  he  wishes 
to  push  the  State  into  the  Church."  l 

Calvin.  Calvin,  the  great  leader  of  the  Reformed,  while  vindicating 

the  independence  of  the  Church  as  to  its  order  and  discipline, 
yet  explicitly  demanded  the  coercive  power  of  the  state  for 
suppressing  heresy  and  vice.  Differences  occurred  between 
Calvin  and  the  Genevan  authorities  as  to  the  delimitation  of 
the  respective  powers  of  the  civil  and  religious  authorities,  with 
the  result  that  the  Reformer  and  his  friends  were  banished 
from  Geneva  for  a  short  time.  Their  return  was  a  virtual  tri- 
umph for  Calvin  on  the  matters  at  issue,  and  thereafter  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church,  with  its  relation  to  the  civil  power, 
1  Innes,  pp.  130-135  ;  Fisher,  Church  History,  p.  416. 


THE  OLD  WORLD   IDEA  51 

was  on  the  lines  laid  down  by  Calvin.  The  regulations  of 
Calvin  involved  a  severe  regimen  both  as  to  morals  and  faith, 
under  which  offences  called  for  both  spiritual  censure  by  the 
Church  and  material  punishment  by  the  state.  Whatever  cen- 
sures were  imposed  by  the  consistory  were  regularly  reported 
to  the  city  council  for  such  action  under  the  civil  law  as  that 
body  might  order.  To  what  extreme  of  persecution  that  body 
could  go  with  the  consent  of  Calvin,  is  shown  in  the  martyr- 
dom of  Servetus  for  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

The  position  of  the  Swiss  Reformers  is  tersely  expressed  in 
the  First  Helvetic  Confession,  A.D.  1536,    "  The  chief  office  First 
of  the  magistrate  is  to  defend  religion,  and  to  take  care  that  confession 
the  word  of  God  be  purely  preached."     The  same  thought  is 
in  the  French  Confession,  written  by  Calvin  in  1559,  "God  French 
hath  put  the  sword  into  the  hands  of  magistrates  to  suppress 
crimes  against  the  first,  as  well  as  the  second,  table  of  the 
law  of  God."      This  doctrine  is  somewhat  modified  in  the 
Second  Helvetic  Confession,  which,  defining  the  chief  office  of  Second 
the  magistrate  as  procuring  "  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  man-  confession, 
kind,"  adds,  "  we  hold  also  that  the  care  of  religion  is  a  first 
duty  of  a  religious  magistrate." l 

Under  the  influence  of  Zwinglius,  readiest  among  all  the  Zwinglius. 
reformers  to  appeal  to  civil  and  military  power,  the  situation 
at  Zurich  was  so  moulded  that  Church  and  State  were  prac- 
tically identical.  Ecclesiastical  power  was  lodged  in  the 
Great  Council,  which  governed  the  civil  affairs  of  the  city. 
To  this  absorption  Calvin  made  a  strenuous  objection.  He 
argued  that  the  state  had  no  right  to  absorb  the  Church,  but 
was  bound  to  cooperate  with  the  Church,  enforce  its  decrees, 
and  give  effect  to  its  discipline.2 

1  What  might  be  the  duty  of  a  non- religious  magistrate  is  not  intimated,  but 
the  subjectiou  of  religious  offences  to  civil  penalty  is  clearly  stated.     Probably 
the  phrase,  "  religious  magistrate,"  was  not  used  in  the  sense  of  distinguish- 
ing between  men  as  religious  or  irreligious.      Every  one  in  those  days  was 
supposed  to  be  of  some  religion,  and  the  kind  of  magistrate  here  indicated  is 
one  who  religiously  or  faithfully  sought  to  do  his  duty. 

2  Fisher,  p.  417. 


52 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Belgic 
Confession. 


Arminius. 


In  the  Netherlands,  strange  as  it  appears  to  us,  notwith- 
standing the  untold  sufferings  to  which  the  people  were  sub- 
jected by  reason  of  Philip's  claim  that  he  could  dictate  the 
religion  of  his  subjects,  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church 
did  not  hesitate  to  declare  in  the  Belgic  Confession,  A.D. 
1561,  that  the  magistrate  was  vested  with  power  not  only  to 
guard  the  state,  but  to  maintain  religion  and  the  Church,  and 
"  to  remove  and  destroy  all  idolatry  and  false  service  of  God." 
Practically,  indeed,  though  the  Reformed  Church  was  es- 
tablished in  Holland  and  so  remains  to  this  day,  this  theory 
of  repression  of  other  faiths  but  once  attempted  enforcement. 
A  large  toleration  was  the  unwritten  law,  as  long  as  religious 
divergence  did  not  entail  disturbances  of  public  order.  Their 
great  leader,  William  of  Orange,  while  himself  of  the  Calvin- 
is  tic  faith,  held  firmly  to  the  principles  of  toleration.  In  this 
he  was  broad  enough  to  comprehend  Anabaptists.  Under 
him  it  was  impossible  for  the  theoretical  demands  of  the 
Confession  for  the  magistrate's  interference  to  find  any 
expression  in  act.  As  Fisher  aptly  remarks,  "In  the  last 
years  of  the  war  with  Spain  the  Calvinists  learned  that,  by 
reason  of  their  sins,  they  could  not  all  be  reduced  to  one  and 
the  same  religion."  l 

There  is  indeed  one  great  exception  to  be  found  in  the 
action  of  the  state  toward  the  Arminians.  Finding  that 
they  could  not  remain  in  the  established  Church,  they 
petitioned  for  toleration  outside  of  it.  The  contention  grew 
fierce  and  the  States  forbade  controversy.  Under  the  influence 
of  Maurice,  the  Stadtholder,  Grotius  was  cast  into  prison  and 
Oldenbarne veldt  beheaded.  The  Synod  of  Dort  in  1618  con- 
demned the  heresy,  without  allowing  to  its  followers  a  liberty 
of  debate,  and  deposed  them  from  the  ministry.  To  this  the 
States  added  a  decree  forbidding  them  to  preach,  on  pain  of 
banishment  from  the  country. 

If  we  cross  the  channel  into  England,  we  find  a  situation 
quite  unique  as  compared  with  continental  countries,  though  the 
1  Church  History,  p.  344. 


THE   OLD   WORLD   IDEA  53 

same  rule  of  state  supremacy  obtains  and  with  greater  force. 
Save  that  the  teachings  of  Wycliffe  had  so  affected  the 
popular  mind  as  to  predispose  it  to  acquiesce  in  the  separa- 
tion from  Rome,  the  Reformation  in  England  was  a  movement 
set  afoot,  not  as  in  other  countries  by  the  conscience  of  the 
people,  but  by  the  policy  of  government.  Henry  VIII.,  the 
most  despotic  of  English  kings,  threw  off  the  yoke  of  Roman 
authority;  while  in  matters  of  faith  he  was  as  much  of  a 
Romanist  as  ever,  putting  himself  at  the  head  of  the  English 
Church,  a  virtual  pope.  In  later  years  he  gave  a  more  open 
ear  to  the  Reformed  doctrine,  so  that  under  his  son  Edward, 
guided  by  the  shifty  Cranmer,  England  ranged  itself  with  the 
Reformed  countries  of  Europe.  The  violent  reaction  by 
which  Mary  sought  to  return  the  kingdom  to  Rome  was 
short-lived,  but  illustrated  the  fact  that  the  principles  of 
the  Reformation  had  taken  firm  hold  upon  the  people.  This 
Elizabeth  recognized,  while  she  retained  in  her  own  hand  the 
reins  of  government  over  the  Church  as  well  as  over  the  state. 
The  form  of  the  Church  of  England  remains  to-day  substan-  Church  of 
tially  the  same  as  it  became  under  the  moulding  hand  of  the  Ensland- 
great  queen  —  a  creation  of  the  civil  power  and  subject  for 
creed,  government,  and  discipline  to  the  final  authority  of  the 
magistrate. 

The  position  taken  by  Elliot l  on  the  origin  of  the  Church 
of  England  cannot  be  maintained.  He  says :  "  The  Church 
never  was  established.  The  institution  grew  in  the  same  way 
that  other  parts  of  the  constitution  grew.  ...  It  does  not 
owe  its  origin  as  an  institution  to  any  definite  act  of  the 
legislature  or  other  sovereign  authority."  This  confounds  the 
two  characteristics  of  the  Church  as  a  body  of  believers,  and 
as  an  organization  under  law.  It  is  true  that  the  legislature 
did  not  originate  the  Church  as  a  body  of  believers.  But 
it  is  equally  true  that  the  legislature  did  originate  that 
organized  institution  known  as  the  Church  of  England. 
Previous  to  the  rupture  by  Henry  there  was  in  the  organic 
1  State  and  Church,  p.  3. 


54  KISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

sense  no  such  thing  as  a  Church  of  England.  There  was 
a  Church  in  England,  but  it  was  an  integral  part  of  the  one 
Church  of  Rome.  As  a  distinct  institution  the  Church  of 
England  owes  its  existence  to  the  act  of  parliament,  1538, 
declaring  separation  from  Rome  and  the  supreme  headship  as 
resident  in  the  king.  In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  the  "Articles 
of  Religion,"  i.e.  the  Church  Creed  and  the  Prayer-book, 
were  approved  by  acts  of  parliament,  without  which  action  of 
the  civil  power  the  Church  had  no  legal  right  to  so  believe 
or  so  pray.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  the  idea  of 
"establishment"  could  be  more  clearly  denned  in  act. 

The  several  elements,  or  features,  of  this  establishment 
are:  — 

1.  The  supremacy  of  the  crown. 

All  high  offices  in  the  Church  are  matters  of  royal 
gift. 

2.  Complete  control  of  parliament  over  the  Church,  as  to 

articles  of  faith,  order,  worship,  and  discipline. 

3.  Membership  of  bishops  in  the  upper  house  of  legis- 

lature. 

4.  National  support  of  the  Church. 

5.  The  broad  membership  in  the  Church,  conditioned  on 

citizenship  and  not  on  personal  faith  or  character. 

6.  Patronage  in  the  Church — the  right  of  presentation 

to  livings  without  regard  to  the  wishes  of  parish- 
ioners. 

In  no  country  is  the  idea  of  establishment  more  strikingly 
presented  than  in  England,  even  the  England  of  to-day. 
The  civil  and  ecclesiastical  administration  are  closely  blended, 
having  the  same  head  and  united  on  many  lines  of  mutual 
dependence,  justifying  the  words  of  Burke,  "The  ideas  of 
Church  and  State  are  inseparable  in  our  view." 

In  the  history  of  this  establishment  after  the  age  of  Eliza- 
beth, though  there  was  no  general  persecution  of  individuals 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  55 

for  conscience'  sake,  there  was  very  stringent  application  of 
the  "Acts  of  Uniformity."  Dissenting  ministers  were,  time 
and  again,  silenced  and  turned  out  of  their  parishes.  Dis- 
senting laymen  were  excluded  from  office  and  from  the 
universities.  No  one  could  enter  parliament  without  taking 
the  Test  Oath,  which  required  subscription  to  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles  and  communicating  according  to  the  rites  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Romanist,  Jew,  Independent,  Presby- 
terian,  were  alike  disabled.  Especially  was  the  cry  of 
"  Popery "  like  shaking  a  red  rag  before  a  bull.  In  these 
acts  of  uniformity  is  to  be  found  the  beginnings  of  America. 
Under  their  stress  the  Pilgrims  went  to  Holland  in  1609, 
and  in  1628  the  first  band  of  Puritans  crossed  the  sea. 

It  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  controlling  idea  in  this 
establishment  was  political,  rather  than  religious,  not  seek- 
ing so  much  the  furtherance  of  a  particular  form  of  faith  and 
worship  for  the  sake  of  religion  as  the  maintenance  of  the 
chosen  form  as  an  adjunct  of  the  state.  Uniformity  was 
insisted  on,  not  as  a  thing  of  religion,  but  a  matter  of  civil 
order.  Dissent  was  reprobated  because,  to  the  mind  of  the 
authorities,  it  was  pregnant  with  public  disorder.  This  is 
most  tersely  exhibited  by  Blackstone :  "  The  sin  of  schism, 
as  such,  is  by  no  means  the  object  of  temporal  coercion  and 
punishment.  The  civil  magistrate  has  nothing  to  do  with  it, 
unless  their  (the  dissenters')  tenets  and  practices  are  such 
as  threaten  ruin  or  disturbance  of  the  State.  He  is  bound, 
indeed,  to  protect  the  Established  Church,  and  if  this  can  be 
better  effected  by  admitting  none  but  its  general  members  to 
offices  of  trust  and  emolument,  he  is  certainly  at  liberty  so  to 
do,  the  disposal  of  offices  being  matter  of  favor  and  dis- 
cretion. But  this  point  being  once  secured,  all  persecution 
for  diversity  of  opinions,  however  absurd  or  ridiculous  they 
may  be,  is  contrary  to  every  principle  of  sound  policy  and 
civil  freedom."  l 

i  Most  of  these  disabilities  remained  until  well  into  the  present  century. 
The  parliamentary  test  was  not  set  aside  until  1826.     The  compulsory  pay- 


56  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Among  the  confessional  utterances  of  the  Reformation 
Scotland.  era,  that  of  Scotland  is  not  behind  those  already  cited,  in 
conceding  to  the  state  a  duty  and  power  concerning  reli- 
gion. John  Knox  was  not  averse  to  demanding  that  the 
civil  power  should  support  Christ's  Kirk  and  Covenant,  and 
should  suppress  opponents  thereto.  He  did,  indeed,  empha- 
size the  independence,  of  each  other,  of  Church  and  State, 
with  God  supreme  over  both.  Yet  the  assembly  of  1560, 
which  formed  the  First  Confession,  and  "set  forth  God's 
glory  and  the  weal  of  His  Kirk  in  this  realm,"  reported 
their  work  to  the  parliament,  by  which  body  it  was  rati- 
fied as  the  true  doctrine,  and  authorized  as  the  law  of 
the  land.  Thus  was  the  Presbytery  established  in  Scot- 
land, and  its  confession  asserted,  "  To  kings,  princes,  rulers, 
and  magistrates  we  affirm,  that  chiefly,  and  most  princi- 
pally, the  conservation  and  purgation  of  the  religion  apper- 
tains." A  religious  function  is  thus  asserted  as  the  first 
duty  of  the  magistrate.  On  the  abdication  of  Mary,  among 
the  legal  steps  taken  were  acts  of  parliament,  confessing 
the  Protestant  doctrine,  forbidding  the  mass,  declaring  the 
Church,  whose  confession  was  ratified  seven  years  before,  to 
be  "  the  only  true  and  holy  Kirk  of  Jesus  Christ  within 
this  realm  " ;  and  framing  for  the  sovereign  a  new  corona- 
tion oath,  binding  him  "  to  maintain  the  true  religion  and 
withstand  the  false,"  and  to  banish  from  the  kingdom  — 
"  root  out "  —  "  all  heretics  and  enemies  to  the  true  worship 

ment  of  Church  rates  by  dissenters,  as  well  as  churchmen,  was  not  abolished 
until  1868.  The  universities  were  opened  to  dissenters  in  1854,  but  denied 
to  them  university  honors  and  emoluments  until  1871.  The  admission  to 
parliament  of  dissenters  involves  the  possibility  that  they  at  some  time  might 
have  the  majority,  with  the  anomalous  result  that  the  Church  would  be 
ruled  by  its  foes!  Such  a  condition  would  force  disestablishment.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  that,  the  old-time  disabilities  being  removed,  the  only 
sufferer  under  the  establishment  is  the  Church  itself.  Completely  deprived 
of  autonomy  and  subject  to  civil  dictation  in  most  important  matters,  what- 
ever may  have  been  its  work  of  grace  and  good,  it  yet  lacks  the  inherent 
dignity  and  self-government  which  should  ever  belong  to  the  Church  of 
God. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  57 

of  God,  that  shall  be  convict  by  the  true  Kirk  of  God  of  the 
foresaid  crimes."1 

Thus  in  the  immediate  Reformation  era  there  was  in  all  the 
Protestant  churches  a  practical  unanimity  of  opinion,  that  to 
the  civil  magistrate  belonged  a  religious  function,  in  some, 
intimately  related  to  the  very  life  of  the  Church,  in  others, 
restricted  to  the  suppression  of  heresy. 

In  the  next  century,  after  one  hundred  years  had  cumu- 
lated their  illustrations  of  this  principle,  after  the  expatriation 
of  Pilgrim  and  Puritan,  the  Westminster  Assembly  delivered  West- 
itself  as  follows  :  "  The  civil  magistrate  may  not  assume  to  mmster- 
himself  the  administration  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  or 
the  power  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  yet  he  hath 
authority,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  take  order  that  unity  and 
peace  be  preserved  in  the  Church,  that  the  truth  of  God  be 
kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all  blasphemies  and  heresies  be 
suppressed,  all  corruptions  and  abuses  in  worship  and  disci- 
pline prevented  or  reformed,  and  all  the  ordinances  of  God 
duly  settled,  administered,  and  observed.  For  the  better 
effecting  whereof,  he  hath  power  to  call  synods,  to  be  present 
at  them,  and  to  provide  that  whatever  is  transacted  in  them 
be  according  to  the  word  of  God." 

Nothing,  in  all  the  utterances  of  the  period,  can  better  than 
these  words  illustrate  the  tenacity  of  the  principle,  that  the 
civil  power  should  perform  a  religious  function.  Emanci- 
pated from  the  Roman  tyranny  which  depended  on  that  prin- 
ciple, these  men  of  England  had  been  learning  for  a  century 
that  only  an  exchange  of  masters  was  being  made,  as  they 
struggled  against  prelacy.  Now  the  long-oppressed  dissent 
comes  to  places  of  power  and  at  once  adopts  the  same  princi- 
ple in  its  own  defence.  There  is  no  wonder  that  the  satirist 
wrote,  — 

1  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Church  of  Scotland  possessed  under  the  estab- 
lishment an  autonomy  not  existent  in  the  Church  of  England.  Though  it 
sought  the  approval  of  the  estates,  and  demanded  their  support,  it  was  yet 
self-originated  and  was  not  subject  to  the  civil  power,  in  matters  of  order, 
faith,  or  discipline. 


58  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  New  Presbyter  is  but  old  Priest  writ  large !  " 

It  is  evident  that,  while  the  assembly  was  unable  to  free 
itself  from  that  moss-grown  principle,  it  was  yet  conscious  of 
confusion  and  inconsistency.  It  solemnly  declares  that  "  God 
alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,"  and  then  proceeds  to  put 
that  conscience  at  the  discretion  of  the  magistrate.  Fearing 
that  the  magistrate  may  use  his  power  unjustly,  it  empowers l 
him  to  call  synods,  but  leaves  to  his  judgment  the  question, 
whether  the  transactions  of  the  synods  are  according  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  therefore  binding  on  him,  as  guardian  of  the 
pure  word,  and  suppressor  of  heresy.  In  reality,  by  this 
deliverance,  the  assembly  bound  the  Church,  hand  and  foot, 
under  the  power  of  the  magistrate.  Though  formulated  more 
than  one  hundred  years  after  the  opening  of  the  Reformation, 
the  Westminster  Confession  was  more  subservient  than  any  of 
the  precedent  creeds  of  that  epoch.  The  reign  of  Presbyte- 
rianism  in  England  was  very  short,  and  no  occasion  of  civil 
oppression  by  it  is  recorded.  It  is  probable  that  in  any  event 
the  enlarged  sense  of  religious  liberty  would  have  forestalled 
any  gross  exercise  of  this  restraining  power ;  but  at  the  same 
time  the  state  was  hereby,  in  set  terms,  put  into  possession 
of  a  power  over  the  Church  fully  so  great  as  that  involved  in 
the  supremacy  of  Henry  VIII. 

To  this  testimony  of  the  creeds  of  Protestantism,  all  of 
which  speak  substantially  with  the  same  voice,  as  to  the 
religious  function  of  the  civil  power,  there  may  be  added 
that  of  the  great  company  of  writers,  philosophers,  jurists, 
theologians  of  the  age,  who  with  but  little  variation  agree 
thereto. 

Erastus.  Erastus,  who  was  court  physician  to  the  Elector  Palatine, 

and  whose  name  has  been  borrowed  to  express  that  theory 
which  denies  all  self-government  to  the  Church,  taught  that 
there  was  no  power  of  discipline  in  the  Church,  and  that  sins 

1  This  "empower"  does  not  direct.    He  may  act  without  a  synod,  if  he 

i 


THE  OLD  WOULD  IDEA  59 

of  its  members  should  be  punished  by  the  civil  magistrate, 
"  for  that  is  his  duty  and  office."  Hugo  Grotius,  the  great  Grotius. 
leader  of  the  Arminians,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  him- 
self was  persecuted  for  opinion's  sake,  taught  that,  while  the 
civil  magistrate  could  not  himself  exercise  sacred  functions 
(administering  the  word  and  sacraments),  yet  he  could  en- 
force their  exercise  by  those  properly  commissioned.  Thus 
it  was  in  the  power  of  the  state  to  abolish  false  religion 
and  punish  its  disciples ;  to  establish  and  control  a  State- 
Church. 

Spinoza,  while  pleading  for  toleration  and  "  liberty  of  phi-  Spinoza, 
losophizing,"  yet  maintains  that  "authority  about  sacred  things 
should  be  wholly  in  the  supreme  power  of  the  State,  and  that, 
if  we  wish  rightly  to  obey  God,  we  should  conform  our  out- 
ward worship  with  a  view  to  the  peace  of  the  republic  " —  "  a 
piety  accommodated  by  the  decree  of  the  State  to  public 
utility." 

Hobbes  held  that  a  Church  without  warrant  from  the  sover-  Hobbes. 
eign  was  unlawful,  the  sovereign  being  supreme  pastor  and 
head  of  the  Church.    As  such  he  could  preach  and  administer 
sacraments  by  himself  or  others. 

Cartwright,  professor  of  divinity  at  Cambridge,  1580,  main-  Cartwright. 
tained  that  while  the  Scripture  was  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
government,  and  that  the  management  of  Church  affairs  be- 
longed to  the  Church  itself,  yet  the  Church  may  call  upon  the 
civil  power  to  root  out  heresy  and  to  preserve  the  purity  of 
religion. 

The  theory  of  Hooker,  1594,  merged  Church  and  State  to-  Hooker, 
gether.  On  this  he  justifies  the  control  of  the  crown  and 
parliament  over  the  Church,  "  Seeing  that  there  is  not  a  man 
of  the  Church  of  England  but  the  same  man  is  also  a  mem- 
ber of  the  commonwealth ;  nor  any  man  a  member  of  the 
commonwealth  which  is  not  also  of  the  Church  of  England." 
Hooker  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  cruel  proscription,  with 
which  Elizabeth  in  her  later  years  pursued  the  non-conformists, 
and  his  essay  on  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  while  attempting  a 


60  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

reasonable  foundation  for  the  royal  supremacy,  offers  no  de- 
fence of  persecution. 

Thus  it  appears  that  for  well-nigh  two  hundred  years  the 
general  trend  of  opinion  set  one  way,  with  variations  as  to  ex- 
tent and  severity,  but  all  agreeing  that  the  state  had  a  right  of 
greater  or  less  supremacy  over  the  Church.  Bossuet  was  sub- 
stantially correct  in  saying  that  on  one  point  all  Christians 
had  long  been  unanimous  — the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  to 
propagate  truth  by  the  sword ;  that  even  heretics  were  ortho- 
dox on  this  point.  For  the  most  part,  Romanist  and  Protes- 
tant alike  would  as  soon  think  of  assailing  any  other  principle 
of  government  as  of  calling  in  question  this  religious  function 
of  the  civil  ruler. 

The  exceptions  were  very  few.  As  already  noted,  William 
of  Orange  desired  a  comprehensive  toleration,  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  he  was  opposed  to  a  state  establishment.  In 
England  the  only  voice  lifted  for  freedom  of  conscience  and 
worship  was  that  of  the  Brownists  and  Barrowists.  Barrow 
and  others  were  executed  on  the  pretext  of  attacking  the 
ecclesiastical  system,  which  action  was  held  to  be  treasonable. 
The  majority  fled  to  Holland.  Later  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, the  great  Cromwell  showed  himself  to  be  more  liberal 
than  most  men  of  his  age.  He  had  doubts  as  to  hard  and  fast 
lines  of  ecclesiastical  policy.  "  Is  it  ingenuous,"  he  said,  "  to 
ask  for  liberty  and  not  to  give  it  ?  "  Yet  under  the  common- 
wealth, while  the  persecution  of  Romanists  was  relaxed,  they 
could  neither  vote  nor  hold  office ;  and  the  use  of  the  book  of 
prayer  was  forbidden.1 

By  far  the  most  advanced  man  of  his  time  was  Sir  Harry 
Vane.  He  had  suffered  somewhat  from  the  intolerance  of 
Massachusetts,  and,  returning  to  England,  had  thrown  his 
energies  into  the  struggle  against  the  king.  But,  whether 
from  king  or  commonwealth,  he  did  not  approve  of  interference 
with  religion.  In  1656  he  published  A  Healing  Question, 
in  which  he  took  the  ground  that  "  the  magistrate  had  no 
i  Fisher,  pp.  484,485. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  61 

right  to  go  beyond  matters  of  outward  practice,  converse,  and 
dealings  in  the  things  of  this  life  between  man  and  man." 
In  this  same  essay  he  also  maintained  that  the  army  should  be 
subject  to  parliament,  for  which  he  was  haled  before  Crom- 
well and  thrown  into  prison. 

In  the  same  decade  arose  the  sect  of  the  Quakers,  Quakers, 
whose  "Inward  Light,"  resenting  all  external  interference 
with  religion,  proclaimed  the  largest  liberty  of  conscience. 
But  their  extreme  "  iconoclasm,"  which  would  destroy 
all  forms,  institutions,  and  sacraments,  added  to  their 
many  wild  vagaries  of  conduct,  brought  their  vital  truth 
into  contempt.  Fox  was  not  recognized  as  a  leader,  save 
of  visionaries. 

John  Locke  stands  highest  in  this  list  of  individual  ex-  Locke, 
ceptions.  In  the  year  of  the  accession  of  William  and  Mary, 
1689,  the  great  Toleration  Act  of  England  was  passed. 
With  this  Locke  was  delighted,  though  far  from  satisfied.1 
His  famous  first  Letter  on  Toleration  written  to  his  friend 
Limbo rch,  said :  "  Toleration  has  indeed  been  granted,  but 
not  with  that  latitude  which  you  and  men  like  you  would 
desire.  But  it  is  something  to  have  got  thus  far."  This  letter 
was  written  in  Latin  and  not  designed  for  publication ;  but 
William  Popple,  a  London  merchant,  in  some  way  coming  into 
possession  of  a  copy,  translated  it  into  English  and  published 
it,  much  to  the  annoyance  of  Locke,  who  thought  the  time  not 
ripe  for  so  open  utterance.  In  the  preface  to  the  trans- 
lation Popple  used  the  words,  which  have  been  wrongly 
attributed  to  Locke,  "  Absolute  liberty,  just  and  true  liberty, 
equal  and  impartial  liberty,  is  the  thing  that  we  stand  in 
need  of." 

In  fact,  however,  these  words  did  not  misrepresent  the 
opinions  of  Locke,  as  appears  from  his  subsequent  letters  on 
the  same  subject.  Thus  he  wrote,  "  People  will  always  differ 
from  one  another  about  religion,  and  carry  on  constant  strife 
and  war,  until  the  right  of  every  one  to  perfect  liberty  in 
1  Fowler,  Life  of  John  Locke,  pp.  57,  59. 


62  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

these  matters  is  conceded,  and  they  can  be  united  in  one  body 
by  a  boiad  of  mutual  charity." 1  Again,  speaking  of  the  State 
and  Church  as  related  to  each  other,  he  said:  "  The  boundaries 
on  both  sides  are  fixed  and  immovable.  He  jumbles  heaven 
and  earth  together,  the  things  most  remote  and  opposite,  who 
mixes  these  societies,  which  are  in  their  original  end,  business, 
and  in  everything,  perfectly  distinct  and  infinitely  different 
from  each  other."  2 

Toleration         On  William's  Toleration  Act,  Innes  remarks:3   "To  the 
Act>  nineteenth  century  this  seems  a  narrow  and  grudging  piece  of 

legislation.  But  it  was  a  great  step  from  Tudor  and  Stuart 
despotism,  and  from  all  that  went  before.  For  the  first  time 
since  England  was  a  nation,  the  worship  of  God  was  permitted 
outside  the  law,  and  a  Church  was  tolerated  outside  the  Church 
which  the  State  selected  for  support."  The  Toleration  Act, 
great  as  was  the  relief  afforded,  only  recognized  the  right  of 
non-confirming  worship,  and  did  not  relax  in  any  particular 
the  civil  disabilities  to  which  its  followers  were  subjected.  Un- 
der these  the  non-conformists  suffered  for  yet  a  hundred  years 
and  more;  while  in  Ireland,  where  the  Protestants  were  in  a 
very  small  minority  of  the  population,  the  Romanists  suffered 
extreme  oppression.  They  could  not  vote,  or  hold  any  office 
whatever.  They  could  not  plead,  or  even  sue,  in  court.  They 
could  not  teach,  or  be  taught  by,  a  Protestant,  and  could  not  go 
abroad  for  education.  If  a  Romanist  married  a  Protestant,  the 
union  was  set  aside,  and  the  officiating  priest  was  to  be  hanged. 
Priests  and  monks  not  registered  were  banished,  and  if  they 
returned,  were  hanged.  John  Morley  says,  "  The  severity  of 
the  persecution  against  the  Catholics  exceeded  that  of  the 
ten  historic  persecutions  of  the  Christian  Church."  4  This  is 

1  Fowler,  Life  of  John  Locke,  pp.  57,  162. 

2  Such  breadth  of  view  is  not  quite  consistent  with  Locke's  Fundamental 
Constitutions  for  Carolina,  by  which,  together  with  great  liberty  of  religion 
and  worship,  the  Church  of  England  was  yet  established  in  that  colony.    But 
the  twenty  years  since  writing  the  constitutions  had  given  ample  time  for 
expansion  of  view. 

8  Innes,  p.  193.  *  Life  of  Burke,  p.  108. 


THE  OLD  WORLD  IDEA  63 

overstrained,  yet  the  lot  of  the  Irish  Romanists  appeals  to  the 
compassion  of  the  centuries. 

The  grudging  toleration  of  William,  with  its  slow  after 
expansions,  illustrates  most  strikingly  the  slowness  with  which 
the  general  mind  came  to  the  conception  of  true  liberty, 
whether  religious  or  civil.  Burke,  writing  of  the  French  Burke. 
Revolution,  put  the  conception  in  words  that  have  never  been 
excelled:1  "The  liberty  I  mean  is  social  freedom.  It  is  that 
state  of  things  in  which  liberty  is  secured  by  equality  of  re- 
straint. This  kind  of  liberty  is,  indeed,  but  another  name  for 
justice.  Whenever  a  separation  is  made  between  liberty  and 
justice,  neither  is  in  my  opinion  safe."  This  acute  remark  is 
equally  true  of  religious  as  of  civil  liberty,  and  it  makes  an- 
other comment  on  the  tardiness  of  human  progress  to  note 
that  the  very  man,  whose  profound  mind  thus  declared  the 
nature  of  true  liberty,  opposed  with  all  the  force  of  his  impas- 
sioned speech  the  first  attempt  to  lighten  the  burdens  on  the 
English  non-conformists.  Men  not  seldom,  while  discerning 
abstract  principles,  fall  lamentably  short  in  their  application  of 
them  to  concrete  matters  of  life. 

But  among  the  few  and  scattered  European  voices  for 
religious  liberty,  heard  in  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
from  the  day  of  Luther,  the  place  of  honor  is  undoubtedly  to 
be  accorded  to  the  Anabaptists.  Their  doctrine  is  one  of  the  Anabaptists, 
most  remarkable  things  which  appeared  in  that  wonderful 
age.  It  comes  to  speech  with  a  clearness  and  fulness  which 
suggest  a  revelation,  just  as  to  Luther  dawned  justification  by 
faith,  soul  enlightening  and  uplifting.  And,  no  less  notable, 
this  doctrine  came  at  the  very  opening  of  the  Reformation,  in 
the  year  1524,  just  after  the  famous  Diet  of  Worms  and  while 
Luther  was  secluded  in  the  Wartburg. 

The  doctrine,2  making  a  thorough  distinction  between  the 
kingdom  of  nature  and  the  kingdom  of  grace,  insisted  that 
freedom  of  conscience  and  of  worship  was  fundamental, 

1  Life  of  Burke,  p.  144. 

2  Kurtz,  II,  393;  Fisher,  p.  425. 


64  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

and  that  religion  should  be  entirely  exempt  from  the 
regulation  or  interference  of  the  civil  power,  so  that  a 
man's  religion  should  not  work  his  civil  disability.  Besides 
this,  they  declared  also  that  the  Church  should  be  com- 
posed exclusively  of  the  regenerate,  membership  therein  to 
be  conditioned,  not  upon  residence  or  birth,  but  upon  the 
work  of  grace  in  the  heart.  In  this  last  point  they  antici- 
pated, by  more  than  two  centuries,  that  distinction  by 
Edwards  which  shattered  the  union  of  Church  and  State  in 
America. 

There  can  be  but  one  mind  as  to  the  grandeur  of  the  doctrine 
thus  propounded  by  the  Anabaptists,  nor  as  to  the  immense 
blessings  which  it  finally  conferred  upon  the  world.  This  is 
the  great  contribution  to  Christian  thought  made  by  this  one 
among  the  Protestant  sects.  To  the  honor  of  its  descendants 
it  should  also  be  noted  that  they  ever  clung  tenaciously  to 
these  principles  so  early  declared.  Thus,  the  English  Baptists 
at  Amsterdam,  in  1611,  made  it  an  article  of  faith  that  — 
"  The  magistrate  is  not  to  meddle  with  religion  or  matters  of 
conscience,  nor  compel  men  to  this  or  that  form  of  religion ; 
because  Christ  is  the  King  and  Lawgiver  of  the  Church  and 
conscience."  And  when,  in  the  following  century,  the  struggle 
for  religious  liberty  took  place  in  America,  among  the  various 
Churches  the  Baptists  were  most  strenuous  and  sturdy  in  its 
defence.  They  divide  the  honors,  indeed,  with  the  Quakers. 
But  while  the  Quakers  were  immovable  in  their  passive  re- 
sistance to  intolerance,  the  Baptists  added  to  such  virtue  the 
active  energy  which  overcomes. 

But  upon  the  world  of  the  early  Anabaptists  their  doctrine 
smote  with  a  voice  of  alarm.  In  Romanist  and  Protestant 
alike  it  aroused  disgust  and  anger,  seeming  to  strike  at  the 
foundations  of  both  Church  and  State.  And  not  without 
reason.  It  was  too  radical,  and  neither  princes  nor  people 
were  ready  to  recognize  its  vital  and  enlightening  principle. 
For  them  it  meant  disorder  and  revolution  without  good  ends 
or  stable  aims,  merely  for  disorder's  sake. 


THE   OLD  WORLD  IDEA  65 

Moreover,  the  doctrine  was  too  great  even  for  these  first 
proclaimers.  It  was  as  though  the  effect  upon  them  over- 
whelmed and  unbalanced  the  mind.  They  lacked  a  great 
leader,  a  Luther  or  Calvin,  who  could  bear  so  great  a  revela- 
tion, and  with  clear  vision  and  firm  hand  discern  and  impose 
those  just  limitations  which  true  liberty  is  glad  to  own. 
Consequently,  they  almost  at  once  brought  their  doctrine  into 
deserved  reproach  by  running  off  into  the  wildest  and  most 
fantastic  vagaries  and  disorders.  They  declared  that  the  state 
was  an  evil  to  be  endured  only  so  long  as  there  were  un- 
regenerate  people ;  that  a  community  of  Christians  needs  no 
civil  magistracy,  for  law  concerns  only  evil-doers,  and  the  only 
valid  legislation  for  Christians  is  the  Bible.  Princes  were  to 
be  dethroned ;  the  enemies  of  the  gospel  were  to  be  de- 
stroyed. John  of  Leyden,  under  such  fanaticism,  attempted 
to  set  up  at  Minister  the  new  "  Kingdom  of  Zion,"  in  which 
all  things  were  to  be  common,  and  which  was  to  usher  in  the 
millennium.  He  was  guilty  of  many  atrocities.  All  Europe 
was  alarmed,  and  most  stringent  measures  were  adopted.  The 
poor  enthusiasts  were  hunted  and  slain  like  wild  beasts. 
With  curious  and  bitter  irony,  the  Protestant  Canton  of 
Zurich  decreed  that  all  "  rebaptizers  and  rebaptized,"  should 
be  drowned.  Thus  the  new  and  glorious  life  was  eclipsed  to 
reappear  after  long  waiting  in  America. 

The  Old  World  Idea,  developed  and  illustrated  in  the 
passage  of  sixteen  centuries,  had  thus  in  all  lands,  both  those 
under  the  Roman  See  and  those  divided  between  the  followers  pL* 
of  Luther  and  Calvin,  this  common  principle  —  a  root  out  of 
which  came  many  variations  —  that  the  state  should  legislate 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Church ;  that  the  Church  should  look 
to  the  state  for  support  and  defence ;  and  that  the  state  should 
recognize  and  establish  a  particular  Church  as  the  represent- 
ative of  the  only  legally  authorized  form  of  religion  and 
worship.  Such  was  the  almost  universal  mind  of  Christendom 
at  the  time  when  the  Pilgrims,  fleeing  from  persecution,  went 
first  to  Holland  and,  eleven  years  after,  to  New  England. 


66  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

And  when,  nearly  a  hundred  years  later,  the  first  act  of 
toleration  was  passed  in  modern  times,  it  was  not  as  a  con- 
cession of  justice  and  right,  but  a  grudging  dole  extorted  by 
clamor  too  Instant  for  resistance.1 

1  It  is  in  place,  as  of  interest,  to  here  note  that'  this  principle  is  still  dom- 
inant in  Europe,  with  but  small  exceptions.  The  only  country  where  religious 
liberty  in  the  American  sense  obtains,  is  Ireland.  Up  to  1869  the  Church  of 
England  was  established  in  Ireland,  the  people  being  "forced  to  support  a 
religion  professed  only  by  a  very  small  minority."  In  that  year  the  Church 
was  disestablished,  the  Eegium  Donum  to  the  Presbyterians  and  Catholic 
endowment  of  Maynooth  were  discontinued,  and  all  churches  were  put  on 
a  footing  of  perfect  equality  before  the  law.  On  the  continent,  Switzerland 
approaches  nearest  to  the  United  States.  The  Constitution  of  1874  declares 
the  freedom  of  conscience  and  worship  to  be  inviolable,  and  that  no  one  can 
be  compelled  to  accept  or  support  a  religion  or  be  punished  on  account  of 
religion.  At  the  same  time  the  constitution  excludes  Jesuits  and  forbids 
establishment  of  convents  and  religious  orders,  while  each  canton  has  its 
own  established  Church  controlled  by  the  civil  magistrate. 

(A  very  full  statement  of  present  European  attitudes  on  this  subject  is 
contained  in  a  pamphlet  by  Philip  Schaff  on  "Religious  Liberty,"  in  the 
publications  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  1886-1887.) 


Ill 

COLONIAL  BEGINNINGS 

IT  is  thus  evident  that,  at  the  period  when  American 
colonization  began,  the  Church  and  State  in  Europe  were 
substantially  of  one  mind  as  to  this  fundamental  principle, 
that  the  prosperity  of  both  depended  upon  a  union  more  or 
less  intimate  and  vital.  To  but  very  few  individuals  had  the 
thought  of  true  liberty  occurred,  while  in  no  country  had  even 
a  grudging  toleration  of  other  than  the  State-Church  been 
made  the  rule  of  law. 

We  need  not  be  surprised,  then,  to  find  the  most  of  the 
colonists  in  hearty  sympathy  with  that  principle.  Some  of 
them,  indeed,  had  suffered  through  its  application ;  but  in 
their  view  that  suffering  was  a  consequence,  not  of  a  vicious 
principle,  but  of  a  wicked  application  of  a  principle  which 
was  very  right  and  necessary.  These  men  had  no  doubt  as  to 
the  propriety  of  a  legal  insistence  upon  a  prescribed  form  of 
worship,  supposing  that  form  to  be  the  true  form  of  worship. 
The  impropriety  and  wrong  of  persecution  were  to  be  decided, 
not  by  any  inherent  vice  of  persecution  itself,  but  by  the  char- 
acter of  the  doctrine  persecuted.  If  the  doctrine  were  false 
then  persecution  of  it  were  justified.  If  the  doctrine  were 
true,  persecution  became  wicked.  Thus,  to  the  minds  of  the 
fathers  of  Massachusetts  it  was  clear,  both  that  the  English 
authorities  were  criminal  in  persecuting  them,  and  that  they 
were  right  in  their  measures  against  the  Brownes  and  Mrs. 
Hutchinson ;  because  they,  both  as  persecuted  and  as  persecu- 
tors, represented  the  truth. 1 

It  is  very  true  that  the  Pilgrim  fathers,  landing   on  the 

1  Fisher,  Colonial  Era. 
67 


68 


EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


New 

England     j 
intolerance. 


Simple 
Cobler. 


"  stern  and  rock-bound  coast "  of  New  England,  sought  and 
obtained  "freedom  to  worship  God."  But  the  usual  under- 
standing of  Mrs.  Hemans's  famous  lines,  that  they  desired  to 
establish  anything  like  a  general  religious  liberty,  is  very  far 
from  the  truth.  Their  conscious  desire  was  freedom  for 
themselves,  never  dreaming  of  extending  an  equal  freedom 
to  such  as  differed  from  them  in  religious  opinion ;  though  to 
the  honor  of  the  Pilgrims  it  should  be  noted,  that  they  were 
afterward  far  more  lenient  and  tolerant  toward  dissentients 
than  were  their  neighbors  of  Massachusetts,  and  that  they 
never  were  guilty  of  great  harshness. 

To  the  early  leaders  of  Massachusetts,  especially  the  re- 
ligious leaders,  toleration  of  dissent  from  the  "established 
order "  of  religious  worship  was  as  sedition  in  the  state  and 
sin  against  God.  John  Cotton  declared  that  "  it  was  Tolera- 
tion that  made  the  world  anti-Christian."  There  are  many 
choice  specimens  of  this  repressive  spirit  in  Nathaniel  Ward's 
(1645)  "  Simple  Cobler  of  Aggawam  in  America."1  "  I  take 
upon  me,"  he  says,  "to  proclaim  to  all  Familists,  Antino- 
mians  (&c.),  to  keep  away  from  us ;  and  such  as  will  come,  to 
be  gone;  the  sooner  the  better."  "Polipiety  (a  variety  of 
sects)  is  the  greatest  impiety  in  the  world."  One  other 
specimen  of  the  Cobler's  spirit  should  not  fail  of  quotation, 
"He  that  is  willing  to  tolerate  any  unsound  opinion,  that 
his  own  may  be  tolerated,  though  never  so  sound,  will  for  a 
need  hang  God's  Bible  at  the  Devil's  girdle." 

This  sentiment  showed  a  marvellous  tenacity,  very  slowly 
yielding  to  the  influences  of  more  liberal  thought;  and  so 
late  as  1673  President  Oakes, 2  of  Harvard  College,  said  in  an 
election  sermon,  "  I  look  upon  unbounded  Toleration  as  the 
first-born  of  all  abominations." 

There  is  to  the  mind  of  to-day  something  of  amazement  at 
the  process  by  which  these  men  justified  their  harsh  measures. 
When  Sir  Richard  Saltonstall,  by  far  the  broadest-minded 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts. 

2  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  504-506. 


COLONIAL  BEGINNINGS  69 

among  the  early  Puritans,  remonstrated  against  the  Boston 
persecutions,  on  the  ground  that  by  such  proceedings  "  many 
are  made  hypocrites,"  Wilson  and  Cotton  replied:  "Better 
be  hypocrites  than  profane  persons  !  There  is  a  great  dif- 
ference between  God's  inventions  and  men's  inventions. 
We  compel  none  to  men's  inventions."  Cotton,  answering  Cotton. 
Williams's  "Bloody  Tenent,"  quite  outdoes  himself:  "It 
is  not  right  to  persecute  any  for  conscience'  sake  rightly 
informed;  for  in  persecuting  such  Christ  Himself  is  perse- 
cuted in  them.  .  .  .  For  an  erroneous  and  blind  conscience 
(even  in  fundamental  and  weighty  points)  it  is  not  lawful 
to  persecute  any,  till  after  admonition  once  or  twice.  .  .  . 
The  word  of  God  in  such  things  is  so  clear,  that  he  cannot 
but  be  convinced  in  conscience  of  the  dangerous  error  of  his 
way,  after  once  or  twice  admonition  wisely  and  faithfully 
dispensed.  ...  If  such  a  man,  after  such  admonition,  shall 
still  persist  in  the  error  of  his  way  and  be  punished,  he  is  not 
persecuted  for  cause  of  conscience,  but  for  sinning  against  Ms 
own  conscience"  The  arrogance  of  spiritual  inquisition  and 
tyranny  could  hardly  go  farther  than  that  in  specious  defence 
of  its  principles. 

The  powerful  presence  of  such  principles  has  to  be  con- 
stantly noticed  in  the  early  history  of  New  England,  op- 
erative with  more  or  less  strictness  and  severity  in  all  the 
colonies,  except  Rhode  Island,  the  corner-stone  of  which  was 
the  explicit  denial  of  this  very  principle  ;  indeed,  without  the 
memory  of  this  religious  attitude  of  the  New  England  colonies 
much  of  their  history  through  the  first  century  will  become 
an  unconnected  and  unmeaning  jumble  of  events.  To  at- 
tempt to  read  into  that  history  the  settled  principles  of  a  later 
day,  or  to  apologize  to  posterity  for  ancestral  oppressions,  is  i 
absurd  and  confusing.  These  men  need  no  apology.  They  ' 
stood  in  their  lot,  in  their  own  age  of  the  world,  working  out 
their  problem,  blindly  and  blunderingly  enough  at  times,  but 
surely.  The  issue,  to  the  light  and  blessing  of  which  their 
children  came,  was  quite  other  than  their  thought,  and  yet 


70  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  Religious  Liberty  of  a  later  day  owed  much  to  the  sharp- 
i   cut  illustrations  furnished  by  the  New  England  Theocracy. 

A  similar  thing  may  be  said  of  the  establishments  in  the 
colonies  in  the  South.      In  these,  notably  exhibited  in  the 
Virginian      story  of  Virginia,  the  attitude  of  the  civil  government  toward 
conformity.    ^  Church  and  religion  was  solely  due  to  a  secular  or  politi- 
cal motive,  quite  different  from  the  Puritan,  whose  motive 
was  purely  religious.     The  Puritan  insisted  on  conformity 
l!  because  he  wanted  to  make  the  state  religious  and  to  pre- 
1  serve  the  true  religion  in  its  purity.     The  Virginian  insisted 
on  conformity,  because  the  Church  was  a  department  of  the 
state,  and  all  dissent  was  indicative  of  civil  disorder  and  in- 
subordination.    This  contrast  is  very  marked ;  and  it  is  among 
the  things  of  special  interest  to  note  how  from  these  two 
diverse  grounds  the  question  of  Church  and  State  came  to 
simultaneous  solutions  in  America,  one  religious  and  the  other 
secular.     On  the  one  hand,  the  Puritan  experiment  demon- 
strates that  the  effect  of  the  union  is  essentially  irreligious ; 
rhile  on  the  other,  the  Virginian  makes  it  clear  that  the  law 
of  conformity  is  the  fruitful  mother  of  disorder. 
Three  Indeed,  there  were  three  separate  answers  coming  to  speech 

systems.  an(j  exhibition  at  the  same  time.  Massachusetts  set  up  its 
2  theocratic  state  with  its  chief  interest  centred  in  the  Church ; 
Virginia  established  its  civil  state,  with  the  Church  as  a  sub- 
ject member,  a  conformity  to  which  was  the  mark  of  a  good 
citizen ;  while  Rhode  Island  boldly  denied  the  purposes  and 
premises  of  both,  placing  an  impassable  gulf  between  the 
State  and  the  Church,  and  relegating  to  the  individual  con- 
science and  to  voluntary  association  all  concern  and  action 
touching  the  Church  and  religious  matters. 

Four  groups  These  are  the  three  extreme  types  about  which  all  the  other 
lonies.  coiOnies  may  be  grouped  with  more  or  less  of  similarity  to 
their  several  patterns.  In  the  one  group  with  Massachusetts 
are  Plymouth,  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  and  New  Hampshire, 
with  their  Congregational  establishments.  Among  these  it 
will  be  observed  that  theocratic  Massachusetts  and  New 


COLONIAL  BEGINNINGS  71 

Haven  were  more  closely  akin  in  the  strictness  of  their  re- 
ligious requirements;  that  Plymouth  and  Connecticut  were 
more  liberal  in  spirit  and  enactments;  while  New  Hampshire 
was  organized  so  long  after  the  period  of  severity  had  waned 
that  it  furnishes  few  illustrations  of  our  theme. 

In  another  group  are  Virginia  and  the  two  Carolinas,  in 
which  the  Church  of  England  was  established  at  their  founda- 
tion and  continued  the  State-Church  until  into  the  era  of  the 
Revolution,  displaying  at  times  strong  and  bitter  feeling 
against  all  forms  of  dissent. 

A  third  group  is  composed  of  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Maryland,  and  Georgia,  in  which  occurred  changes  of  attitude 
toward  the  Church.  Maryland  began  with  religious  freedom, 
under  Roman  Catholic  auspices,  and  was  afterward  dragooned 
into  establishing  the  Church  of  England.  In  New  York  and 
New  Jersey,  the  violence  of  English  officials  endeavored  to 
force  the  same  Church  on  a  Dutch  Reformed  foundation,  but 
never  secured  for  it  a  legal  establishment.  The  charter  of 
Georgia  declared  liberty  of  worship,  but  on  its  abrogation  the 
Church  of  England  was  established  by  royal  edict  and  legisla- 
tive enactment,  a  few  years  before  the  Revolution. 

The  fourth  group  comprises  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Delaware.  The  last-named,  however,  was  for  so  long  a 
time  a  part  of  Pennsylvania  that  its  history  on  the  religious 
question  is  merged  with  that  of  the  larger  colony.  In  these 
colonies  no  Church  was  ever  established.  More  than  that, 
the  impropriety  of  a  religious  establishment  was  explicitly 
declared.  Of  the  two,  Rhode  Island  was  far  broader  than 
Pennsylvania.  The  Quaker,  notwithstanding  his  voice  for 
liberty  of  conscience,  could  yet  make  no  civic  room  for  the  in- 
fidel, and  insisted  on  certain  religious  restrictions.  Strangely 
enough,  even  to-day,  Pennsylvania,  by  terms  of  its  constitu- 
tion, is  unique  among  the  United  States,  in  that  it  restricts 
its  civic  privileges  to  believers  in  "  an  Almighty  and  Eternal 
God."  Rhode  Island  from  the  beginning  imposed  no  religious 
restrictions  whatever  upon  its  citizenship,  and  allowed  no 


72  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

question  by  the  civil  law  as  to  the  belief  or  unbelief  of  any 
one.  The  civil  law  knew  neither  theist  nor  atheist,  neither 
Jew  nor  Christian,  neither  Romanist  nor  Protestant,  neither 
Episcopalian  nor  Baptist,  neither  Congregationalist  nor  Presby- 
terian. There  has  never  been  a  more  perfect  equality  of  re- 
ligious beliefs  before  the  law  than  was  enacted  in  Rhode 
Island  at  its  very  beginning  —  a  revelation  and  pattern  to  all 
the  other  colonies ;  by  them  for  a  long  period  despised  and 
derided,  but  to  the  likeness  of  which  they  were  glad  at  last 
to  come. 

The  stress    of    conflict  was   in   Massachusetts,   Virginia, 
Maryland,  and  New  York,  because  of  exceptional  enthusiasm 
on  the  part  of  religionists  meeting  with  exceptional  determi- 
nation of  the  civil  power ;  or  yet  again  of  peculiar  historical 
developments  with  which  religious  questions  became  mingled. 
Of  the  one  the  story  of  the  Quakers  in  Massachusetts,  and  of 
the  other  the  change  from  Dutch  to  English  rule  in  New 
York,  may  serve  as  illustrations.    For  this  reason  our  attention 
will  be  mainly  directed  to  the  history  of  these  four  colonies. 
/   In  that  study  another  and  striking  contrast  will  appear, 
Origin  of       arising  from  the  origin  of  the  respective  establishments.     In 
establish-       Virginia  was  a  Church  imposed  on  the  colony  by  the  civil 
ments.          authorities  without  any  suggestion  that  the  people  should  be 
consulted  in  regard  to  it.     It  was  simply  a  branch  plucked 
from  the  Church  at  home  and  planted  in  the  soil  of  Virginia, 
though  afterward  ratified  by  the  colony.     In  Massachusetts  was 

/a  Church  native  to  the  soil,  not  owing  descent  from  any 
establishment  across  the  sea,  the  choice  of  the  people,  by 
them  organized  and  vested  with  the  powers  of  the  civil 
magistrate.  In  both  the  religious  establishment  was  of  posi- 
^  tive  character,  while  in  Massachusetts  the  union  of  Church 
and  State  was  far  closer,  and  its  spirit  more  inquisitorial, 
than  in  Virginia. 

Yet  again,  in  NeV  York,  after  a  half  century  of  existence 
under  the  lax  superintendence  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Holland,  was  a  perverse  attempt  —  never  legally  successful  — 


COLONIAL  BEGINNINGS  73 

to  force  a  foreign  Church  upon  a  people,  nine-tenths  of 
whom  were  opposed  to  its  policy  and  methods.  In  Maryland, 
also,  will  be  seen  a  unique  situation.  Begun  under  the  nota- 
ble tolerance  of  a  Roman  Catholic  proprietor  with  freedom 
not  less  than  that  of  Pennsylvania,  the  religious  life  of  the 
colony  was  subjected  to  many  troublesome  variations  —  some 
of  them  through  the  rivalry  of  Puritan  and  Cavalier,  and 
others  through  political  changes  in  government. 

One  other  thing  to  be  frequently  noted  is  that,  so  far  as  the 
direct  influence  of  the  English  government  could  affect  the 
character  of  religious  institutions  in  the  colonies,  the  judg- 
ment was  almost  invariable  that  such  institutions  should  be 
in  vital  relation  with  the  Church  at  home.  This  judgment 
appears  in  charters  and  in  frequent  "  instructions  "  to  gov- 
ernors, often  very  peremptory  in  their  terms.  It  found 
practical  effect  in  America  in  all  places  where  a  stronger 
adverse  religious  sentiment  of  colonists  did  not  oppose  it. 

With  these  preliminary  observations  we  turn  to  the  history  i 
of  the  different  colonies.     The  special  peculiarities  require  /U/* 
that  each  narrative  should  cover  the  entire  colonial  period 
without  break,  inasmuch  as  each  possesses  distinctions  pecul- 
iarly its  own.     One  of  the  most  marked  features  of  the  his- 
tory is  in  these  distinctions,  pronouncing  often  the  sharpest 
contrast  between   colonies,  the   borders   of  which  touched 
each  other. 

We  may,  however,  on  the  line  of  a  similarity  already  sug- 
gested, observe  the  groups  into  which  the  colonies  fall  by 
reason  of  the  general  character  of  their  governmental  atti- 
tudes toward  religion  and  the  Church.  As  so  classed  we 
may  consider  their  respective  stories,  without  rigid  regard  to 
the  chronological  succession  in  the  planting  of  the  colonies. 


IV 

THE  CHUECH  OP  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS 

THE  first  group  is  of  those  colonies  in  which  the  Church 
of  England  was  established  by  charter  at  the  beginning,  was 
formally  established  also  by  enactment  of  the  colonial  legis- 
latures, and  remained  the  State-Church  until  the  Revolution. 
They  are  Virginia  and  the  Carolina*. 

I.     Virginia 

Religious  The  profession  of  a  religious  motive  in  the  founding  of 

motive.  Virginia,  as  of  other  colonies,  was  very  pronounced.  Remem- 
bering how  a  similar  motive  was  declared  by  the  Spaniard  in 
the  Floridas,  by  the  French  in  Canada,  by  the  perpetrators 
of  countless  atrocities,  such  as  Menendez,  who  hanged  the 
Port  Royalists,  "not  as  Frenchmen,  but  as  Lutherans,"  we 
need  not  inquire  over  accurately  into  its  sincerity.  But  it 
stands  on  record  as  a  motive  and  aim. 

Raleigh.  To  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  planning  the  settlement  of  the 

province  which  he  had  named  Virginia  in  honor  of  his  queen, 
Hakluyt  writes  a  letter,  deploring  that  "  the  fewest  number  " 
of  explorers  seek  "  the  glorie  of  God  and  the  saving  of  the 
soules  of  the  poore  and  blinded  infidels,"  and  expressing 
pleasure  in  Raleigh's  project,  because  "  you  meane  to  sende 
some  such  good  Churchman  thither  (to  Virginia)  as  may 
truly  say  with  the  Apostles  to  the  Sauvages,  wee  seeke  not 
yours  but  you.'*""! 

The  same  motive  finds  place  in  the  first  Virginia  charter, 
given  by  James  I.,  1606,  which  recites  the  hope  and  intention 
that,  "so  noble  a  worke  may  by  the  Providence  of  Almighty 
God  hereafter  tend  to  the  glorie  of  his  Divine  Majesty  in  the 

74 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  75 

propagating  of  the  Christian  religion  to  such  people  as  yet 
live  in  darkness."  To  this  admirable  Christian  and  mission- 
ary motive  the  charter,  after  outlining  the  method  of  colonial 
administration,  adds  a  prescription,  "  that  the  said  presidents, 
councils,  and  the  ministers  should  provide  that  the  Word  and 
Science  of  God  be  preached,  planted,  and  used,  not  only  in 
the  said  colonies,  but  also  as  much  as  might  be  among  the 
savages  bordering  among  them,  according  to  the  rites  and 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England."1  Thus  at  the  very  be-  Church 
ginning  and  in  the  foundation  of  the  new  community  was  the  establlshed- 
Church  of  England  established  in  Virginia. 

The  first  expedition,  which  left  England  in  December  of 
1606  and  reached  Virginia  in  the  following  April,  brought 
the  Rev.  Robert  Hunt,  who  was  specially  chosen   for  the  Robert 
service   by   the   archbishop   of   Canterbury   and   for   whose  Huntl 
support  the  company  voted  <£500.     He  is  variously  described 
as  well  fitted  for  his  position  —  "a  pious,  disinterested,  reso- 
lute, and  exemplary  man  " — "a  man  of  piety,  scholarship,  and 
devotion."2     The   colonists   settled   Jamestown,   built  Fort 
James,  and  "  for  a  Church  they  nailed  a  board  between  two  - 
trees  to  serve  as  a  reading   desk,  and   stretched  a   canvas 
awning  over  it,  and  there  the  Rev.  Robert   Hunt,  a   high- 
minded  and  courageous  divine,  first  clergyman  of   English 
America,  read  the  Episcopal  service  and  preached  a  sermon 
twice  on  every  Sunday.  "  3 

The  second  charter  of  1609  repeated  the  terms  of  ecclesias- 
tical establishment.  It  also  licensed  the  company  to  take  to 
Virginia  "  all  persons  wishing  to  go  thither,  who  would  take 
the  oath  of  supremacy."  This  clearly  marks  the  desire  that 
no  non-conformists  should  be  settled  in  the  new  colony.  At 
the  same  time  it  opened  the  door  to  a  far  more  undesirable 
class  of  people,  as  says  the  New  Life  of  Virginia  f  "  By  which 

1  Anderson,  History  of  Colonial  Church,  I,  199. 

2  Hawks,  Contributions  to  Ecclesiastical  History,  I.    Campbell,  History 
of  Virginia,  p.  52. 

8Fiske,  Old  Virginia,  I,  93.  4  Force,  Historical  Tracts. 


76 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Whitaker. 


Governor 
Dale. 


means  the  body  of  the  plantation  was  now  augmented  with 
such  numbers  of  irregular  persons  .  .  .  they  displayed  their 
condition  in  all  kinds  of  looseness."  To  such  admission  of 
"irregular  persons,"  who  would  not  scruple  at  the  oath  of 
supremacy,  the  government  attempted  shortly  afterward  to 
add  the  forcible  importation  of  convicts. 1  Setting  out  to 
enforce  the  Act  39  Eliz.,  "  that  such  rogues  as  are  dangerous 
to  the  common  people  be  banished  the  realm,"  the  king  com- 
manded the  Virginia  company  to  receive  one  hundred  "  disso- 
lute persons"  and  send  them  to  Virginia.  The  company 
resisted,  but  the  transportation  of  at  least  fifty  was  insisted 
on.  Later,  in  1617,  there  was  an  order  in  council  for  the 
delivery  of  five  prisoners  in  Oxford  gaol  to  Sir  Thomas 
Smyth,  for  transportation  to  Virginia. 2  On  this  policy  wrote 
Stith,  "  It  hath  laid  the  finest  countries  in  America  under  just 
scandall  of  being  a  mere  hell  upon  earth." 

There  is  no  need  for  us  to  follow  the  general  fortunes  of 
the  infant  colony.  The  short  ministerial  service  of  Hunt 
was  followed  by  the  ministry  of  Alexander  Whitaker,  "  the 
Apostle  of  Virginia,"  who  wrote  the  "Grood  News  from 
Virginia."  Of  him,  W.  Crashawe,  in  the  "Epistle  Dedicatorie" 
says  that  he  was  "  a  scholler,  a  graduate,  a  preacher,  well- 
borne  and  friended  in  England ;  not  in  debt  or  disgrace,  but 
competently  provided-for ;  not  in  want,  but  rich  in  possession 
and  more  in  possibility;  of  himself,  without  any  persuasion 
(but  God's  and  his  own  heart),  he  did  voluntary  leave  his 
warme  nest,  and  undertooke  this  hard  —  heroical  resolution 
to  go  to  Virginia  and  helpe  to  beare  the  name  of  God  unto 
the  Gentiles."  3 

Whitaker's  "Grood  News"  was  published  in  1612,  the  year 
after  Sir  Thomas  Dale  came  to  the  governor's  office.  Dale 
was  sent  out  by  the  company  to  correct  the  disorders  which 
jealousies,  a  false  system,  and  lax  morality  had  caused  in  the 

1  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  I,  324. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  9;  I. 

8  Force,  Historical  Tracts;  Hawks'  Contributions  to  Ecclesiastical  History. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS     77 

colony,  a  work  to  which  the  stern  soldier  set  himself  with 
a  firm  hand.  Whitaker  describes  him  as  "a  man  of  great 
knowledge  in  divinity,  and  of  a  good  conscience  in  all  things, 
both  which  be  rare  in  a  martial  man."  The  first  act  of  Dale 
was  to  destroy  the  communal  system  of  land  tenure  and  labor, 
and  by  giving  personal  titles  to  land  and  to  rewards  of  labor 
to  infuse  life  and  hope  into  an  almost  dying  community. 

The  next  step  was  the  attempted  correction  of  the  moral 
and  religious  slackness  of  the  settlers,  to  accomplish  which  he 
ordained  the  "Lawes  Divine,  Moral  and  Martial."  These  Lawes 
laws  "  had  been  copied,  for  the  most  part,  from  the  Laws  ob-  Dlvme* 
served  during  the  wars  in  the  Low  Countries,  in  which  Dale 
had  himself  served."  l  Like  the  laws  of  Draco,  they  were  of 
a  severity  far  exceeding  any  of  the  more  famous  Puritan  re- 
strictions in  New  England.  The  extreme  harshness  of  them 
can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  supposition  of  the  great 
laxity  in  the  young  community,  described  in  "  Virginia's 
Cure  "  —  a  letter  written  by  R.  G.  to  the  Bishop  of  London : 
"  Through  the  licentious  lives  of  many  of  them  the  Christian 
religion  is  like  still  to  be  dishonored,  and  the  name  of  God 
blasphemed  among  the  Heathen,  who  are  near  them  and  oft 
among  them,  and  consequently  their  conversion  hindered."  2 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III ;  Anderson,  History  of  Colonial  Church, 
I,  282. 

2  Force,  Tracts,  III.    It  is  notable  that,  while  Dale  was  sent  to  Virginia 
with  a  purpose  of  reforming  abuses,  by  reason  of  which  "the  plantation  had 
fallen  into  discredit "  at  home,  he  yet  brought  with  him  a  large  instalment  of 
the  class  of  people  whose  errors  he  was  to  correct.     Himself  writes  that  the 
people  were  "  Such  as  they  were  enforced  to  take  —  gathering  them  in  riotous, 
lazy,  and  infected  places  ;  such  disordered  persons,  so  profane,  so  riotous,  so 
full  of  mutiny  and  treasonable  intendments,  that  in  a  parcel  of  three  hundred 
not  many  gave  testimony,  beside  their  names,  that  they  were  Christians." 
(Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  9;  I,  note.)     Sir  Thomas  Smyth 
vindicates  the  severity  of  Dale's  code  as  needful  to  keep  the  disorderly  elements 
in  check.    He  speaks  of  many  among  them  as  dissolute  and  convicts,  and  states 
that,  so  late  as  1620,  the  city  of  London  contributed  £500  toward  the  expense 
of  transporting  one  hundred  youth,  "in  order  to  rid  itself  of  the  burden  of 
them."   In  fact,  this  compulsory  colonization  was  frequent  until  the  end  of  the 
century,  though,  happily,  its  victims  were  not  always  of  the  disorderly  class. 


78  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The   sections   of   Dale's   Code,  which  have  reference  to 
religion,  are  briefly  as  follows : l  — 

1.  To  speak  impiously  of  the  Trinity  or  one  of  the  Divine 

Persons,  or  against  the  known  articles  of  Christian  faith, 
was  punishable  with  death. 

2.  The  same  penalty  of  death  was  to  avenge  "  blaspheming 

God's  holy  Name." 

3.  To  curse  or  "  banne  " —  for  the  first  offence  some  severe 

punishment ;  for  the  second  a  "  bodkin  should  be  thrust 
through  the  tongue  "  ;  if  the  culprit  was  incorrigible,  he 
should  suffer  death. 

4.  To  say  or  do  anything  "  to  the  derision   or  despight  of 

God's  holy  word,"  or  in  disrespect  to  any  Minister, 
exposed  the  offender  to  be  "  openly  whipt  3  times,  and 
to  ask  public  forgiveness  in  the  assembly  of  the  con- 
gregation, 3  several  Saboth  daies." 

5.  Non-attendance  on  religious  services  entailed  a  penalty, 

for  the  first  offence,  of  the  stoppage  of  allowance ;  for 
the  second,  whipping  ;  for  the  third,  the  galleys  for  six 
months. 

6.  For  Sabbath-breaking  the  first  offence  brought  the  stoppage 

of  allowance;  the  second,  whipping;  and  the  third, death. 

7.  Preachers   and   ministers  were   enjoined   to   faithfulness 

in  the  conduct  of  regular  services  on  pain  "  of  losing 
their  entertainment." 

8.  Every  person  in  the  colony,  or  who  should  come  into  it, 

was  required  to  repair  to  the  Minister  for  examination 
in  the  faith.  If  he  should  be  unsound,  he  was  to  be 
instructed.  If  any  refused  to  go  to  the  minister,  he 
should  be  whipt ;  on  a  second  refusal  he  should  be  whipt 
twice  and  compelled  to  "acknowledge  his  fault  on 
Saboth  day  in  the  assembly  of  the  congregation  " ;  for  a 
third  refusal  he  should  be  "  whipt  every  day  until  he 
makes  acknowledgment." 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS     79 

Notwithstanding  the  atrocity  of  these  requirements,  it 
does  not  appear  that  their  severer  penalties  were  ever 
enforced  by  Dale.  His  "bark  was  worse  than  his  bite,"  and 
the  fulmination  of  such  orders  was  doubtless  with  the  view 
of  frightening  the  lawless  elements  into  decency. 

Dale's  successor,  Argal,  who  came  to  office  in  1616,  a  man  Argal. 
of  "indiscriminate  rapacity  and  vices,"  was  not  so  gentle. 
The  "  bloody  code  "  spoke  his  mind,  and  he  made  use  of  its 
severity,  and  more,  to  further  his  own  greed  and  passion. 
"  The  condition  of  Virginia  became  intolerable ;  the  labor  of 
the  settlers  was  perverted  to  the  benefit  of  the  governor; 
servitude  for  a  limited  period  was  the  common  penalty 
annexed  to  trifling  offences ;  life  itself  was  insecure  against 
his  capricious  passions."  l  Finally,  his  ferocity  in  condemn- 
ing Captain  Brewster  to  death  brought  a  general  outcry  from 
the  colonists.  Appeal  was  taken  to  England,  the  "Lawes 
Divine,  Moral  and  Martial,"  were  abrogated  by  the  company, 
and  Argal  was  superseded  by  Yeardley,  whose  inefficient 
administration  was,  after  three  years,  terminated  by  the 
appointment  of  Sir  Francis  Wyatt. 

Hitherto,  the  government  of  Virginia  had  been  a  practical  Wyatt. 
despotism  by  the  company  in  London  and  by  the  governors. 
Wyatt  brought  with  him  in  1621  new  ordinances  of  govern- 
ment, which  transformed  the  entire  system.     Adding  to  the 
governor  a  council  and  a  general  assembly,  meeting  annually, 
the  new  system  was  practically  as  free  and  self-governing  as 
that  established  by  the  Massachusetts  Puritans.     Nor  was  it 
in  any  essential  particular  modified  by  the  abrogation  of  the 
company's  patent  in  1624  and  the  assumption  of  the  colony 
as  a  royal  province.     It  was  meant  to  conserve  "  the  great-  Royal 
est  comfort  and  benefit  of  the  people,  and  the  prevention  of  Provmce- 
injustices,  grievances,  and  oppressions."2 

The  first  article  of  "  Instructions  "  to  the  new  government, 
as  of  prime  importance,  directs  the  authorities  "  to  take  into  care  for  the 
their  special  regard  the  service  of  Almighty   God  and  the  Church- 
1  Bancroft,  1, 152.  2  Ibid.,  1, 158. 


80  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

observance  of  His  divine  Laws;  and  that  the  people 
should  be  trained  up  in  true  religion  and  virtue  ...  to 
the  Order  and  Administration  of  Divine  Service  according 
to  the  form  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England ;  care- 
fully to  avoid  all  factions  and  needless  novelties,  which 
only  tended  to  the  disturbance  of  peace  and  unity;  and 
to  cause  that  the  Ministers  should  be  duly  respected  and 
maintained." 1 

Under  these  ordinances,  which  also  provided  that  no 
decree  from  England  should  have  the  force  of  law  in 
Virginia  until  ratified  by  the  general  assembly,  the  care 
for  religion  and  the  establishment  was  made  a  prime  duty 
of  the  government  —  a  duty  which  the  legislature  set  itself 
repeatedly  to  perform. 

The  first  assembly,  whose  acts  have  been  preserved,  was 
that  of  1623.     Among  its  earliest  actions  was  a  rather  corn- 
Religious       prehensive  measure  in  regard  to  religious  matters. 2    It  enacted 
legislation.     ^hat  u  there  should  be  in  every  plantation,  where  the  people 
are  to  meet,  for  the  worship  of  God,  a  house  or  room  sequest- 
ered for  that  purpose,  and  not  to  be  for  any  temporal  use 
whatever."     Also,    "  there   should  be   a   uniformity  in    our 
Church  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  Canons  in  England,  both  in 
substance  and  in  circumstance,  and  that  all  persons  yield 
readie  obedience  under  pain  of  censure."  3 

1  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  I,  328. 

2  Hening,  Statutes,  I,  122. 

f  8  The  act  provided  penalties  :  for  absence  of  one  Sunday  from  Church  a 
fine  of  five  pounds  of  tobacco  ;  for  speaking  "  disparagingly  of  any  minister 
without  proof,"  a  fine  of  500  pounds  of  tobacco.  The  act  also  forbade 
ministers  to  be  absent  from  their  parishes,  under  penalty  ;  and  forbade  the 
people  to  sell  any  tobacco  or  corn  until  the  claims  of  the  minister  were  paid 
out  of  the  best  of  both  crops. 

The  care  which  the  assembly  thus  assumed  for  things  ecclesiastical  finds 
constant  expression  in  after  years.  As  to  the  clergy,  it  took  many  measures 
for  their  support  and  behaviour.  It  gave  them  glebes,  ' '  which  glebes  were, 
in  the  first  instance,  to  be  cultivated  by  six  tenants  placed  on  each  of  them 
at  the  public  expense."  The  annual  support  of  a  minister  was  fixed  at  1500 
pounds  of  tobacco  and  16  barrels  of  corn,  to  be  assessed  at  the  rate  of  10 


THE   CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  81 

The  assembly  was  very  careful  for  the  standing,  reputation,  Ministers. 
behaviour,  and  efficiency  of  the  clergy.  Thus  in  1629  it  was 
ordered  that  "  All  ministers  conforme  themselves  to  the  canons  —  — 
of  the  Church  of  England."  l  Further,  "  noe  man  shall  dis- 
parage a  mynister,  whereby  the  myndes  of  his  parishoners 
may  be  alienated  from  him,  and  his  mynistrie  prove  less  effec- 
tuall,  upon  payne  of  the  severe  censure  of  the  governor  and 
council."  2  Not  only  must  the  people  be  restrained  from  such 
disrespect  for  the  ministry,  but  the  clergy  must  be  forbidden 
all  conduct  which  could  justify  disparagement.  It  would 
appear  that,  already  forgetting  the  examples  of  the  saintly 
Hunt  and  Whitaker,  the  Virginia  clergy  had  begun  to  assume 
that  indecorous  conduct  which  was  the  cause  of  so  much 
lamentation  in  after  years.  Thus  the  statute  reads,3  "  Myn- 
isters  shall  not  give  themselves  to  excesse  in  drinking  or  ryott, 
spending  the  time  idelie  by  day  or  by  night,  playing  at  dice, 
cards,  or  any  other  unlawful  game,  but  at  all  tymes  conven- 
ient they  shall  heare  or  reade  somewhat  of  the  holy  scriptures, 
shall  occupie  themselves  with  some  other  honest  studies  or 
exercise,  always  doing  the  things  which  shall  appertayne  to 
honestie  and  endeavor  to  profitt  the  Church  of  God,  having 

pounds  of  tobacco  and  one  bushel  of  corn  per  head  for  every  man  and  boy 
over  sixteen  years.  This  stipend,  estimated  at  the  value  of  £200,  was  the 
highest  amount  payable  to  a  minister.  If  in  any  parish  the  quota  was  less 
than  this  amount,  the  stipend  should  be  reduced  ;  if  greater,  the  stipend 
should  not  be  increased ;  but  the  ratio  of  assessment  should  be  reduced 
(Stith'sFir^ima).  In  1629  the  assembly  declared  (Hening,  I,  144)  that  "it 
is  thought  fitt  that  all  who  worke  in  the  ground,  of  what  qualitie  or  condi- 
tion soever,  should  pay  tithes  to  the  minister."  In  1632  the  assembly  ordered 
that  the  minister's  tobacco  and  corn  be  deposited  "  in  such  place  as  he  may 
appoynt,  before  any  other  tobacco  of  any  man's  cropp  be  disposed  of  ;  "  also, 
"because  of  the  low  rates  of  tobacco,"  that  there  should  be  given  to  the 
minister  "  the  20th  calfe,  the  20th  kidd  of  goates,  and  the  20th  pigge."  The 
minister's  fees,  "  petty  duties,"  were  fixed  at  two  shillings  for  marrying,  and 
one  shilling  for  churching  and  for  burying.  Christening  must  be  performed 
gratis.  It  was  also  ordered  that  the  church-wardens  should  collect  all 
ministerial  dues  and  be  themselves  responsible  on  failures.  (Hening,  I, 
144,  149,  207.) 

1  Hening, I,  149.  2  Ibid.,  I,  156.  8  Ibid.,  I,  158,  183. 


82  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

alwayes  in  minde  that  they  ought  to  excell  all  others  in 
puritie  of  life,  and  should  be  examples  to  the  people,  to  live 
well  and  christianlie." 

As  to  services,  the  assembly  ordained,  in  1631  and  1632, l 
that  every  minister  "  shall  preach  one  sermon,  every  Sunday 
in  the  year,"  and  "  shall,  halfe  an  hower  before  every  prayer, 
examine  and  instruct  the  youth."  He  must  also  visit  "  the 
dangerouslie  sick " ;  and  must  administer  the  sacrament 
"  thrice  in  the  year."  It  also  commanded  that  "  all  preaching, 
administrynge  the  communion,  and  marriage  shall  be  in  the 
Church,  except  in  cases  of  necessitie." 

Baltimore.  In  1628  Lord  Baltimore  came  to  Virginia,  intending  only 
to  make  that  colony  a  place  of  temporary  sojourn  while  ar- 
ranging for  his  own  colony  under  the  king's  patent.  But  he 
was  not  suffered  to  remain.  The  governor  and  council  in- 
sisted that,  even  for  so  short  a  time  as  his  purposes  required, 
he  must  take  the  oath  of  supremacy.  As  a  Roman  Catholic, 
it  was  impossible  for  him  to  acknowledge  the  ecclesiastical 
headship  of  the  king  of  England,  but  he  offered  to  take  a 
modified  oath  covering  all  necessary  questions  of  allegiance. 
This  the  Virginians  were  not  willing  to  accept,  and  Baltimore, 
though  a  personal  friend  of  Charles,  was  not  allowed  to  remain 
in  the  colony.  We  may  very  strongly  suspect  that  this  action 
was  due,  less  to  ardor  for  the  royal  prerogative  and  the  main- 
tenance of  the  established  Church,  than  to  jealousy  of  a  new 
proprietor  who  designed  to  found  another  and  rival  colony  on 
the  borders  of  Virginia. 

However  this  may  be,  the  incident  may  be  credited  with 
inciting  a  renewal  of  zeal  for  the  establishment,  which  ex- 
pressed itself  in  a  new  act  of  uniformity  by  the  assembly  of 
1631. 2  The  act  ordained  the  observance  "throughout  this 
colony "  of  "  the  canons  and  constitution  of  the  Church  of 
England  —  upon  penaltie  of  the  paynes  and  forfeitures  in 
that  case  appoynted."  This  act  was  repeated  in  the  next 
assembly.  Absentees  from  Church  services  were  fined  one 
1  Hening,  I,  157,  158.  2  /Wdr.,  I,  155. 


THE   CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  83 

shilling  for  each  offence,  while  "all  commanders,  captaynes, 
and  church-wardens  "  were  solemnly  charged  to  "  see  this 
good  and  wholesome  lawe "  observed ;  and  the  church- 
wardens were  required  to  take  oath  to  faithfully  discharge 
their  duties  and  watch  over  the  conduct  of  the  people  under 
the  statute. 

So  far  as  the  terms  of  law  went,  Virginia,  both  under  the 
company  and  under  the  king,  was  not  liberal  in  matters  of 
religion.  Practically,  however,  while  the  laws  were  rigid,  the 
authorities  were  lax  in  their  enforcement  up  to  the  time  of 
Berkeley.  This  action  in  regard  to  Lord  Baltimore  was  the 
first  case  recorded  of  molestation  for  conscience'  sake.1  There 
occurred  also  under  Governor  Harvey  an  instance  of  minis- 
terial subjection  to  the  civil  power.  A  certain  Mr.  White,  a 
minister,  was  silenced  by  Harvey  "for  cursing  those  of  his 
own  parish."  2  This  action  was  presently  used  as  an  accusation 
against  Harvey.  He  defended  himself  by  saying  that  White 
never  produced  any  credentials  of  ordination,  though  he  had 
two  years  in  which  to  obtain  them.  Harvey  cited  the  com- 
mandment of  Archbishop  Laud  that  no  man  should  be  taken 
as  a  minister  to  Virginia,  until  his  orders  were  approved  by  the 
bishop  of  London.  The  practical  rule,  however,  was  tolerant,  Early 
though  it  is  probable  that,  had  any  avowed  Romanist  come  to  tolerance- 
the  colony  with  purpose  of  domicile,  he  would  have  been  ex- 
pelled, as  among  all  Protestants  of  the  time  there  was  an 
abiding  hatred  of  all  things  "  papistical." 

To  such  animosity  the  Puritans  were  not  obnoxious  for  the  Puritans  in 
first  thirty  years  of  Virginia   history.     Indeed,  until  about  Virsima- 
1640,  the  Puritans  in  England  considered   themselves,  and 
were  considered  by  others,  as  having  right  and  place  in  the 
Church  of  England.     Winthrop  and  his  companions  bade  a 
tender  farewell  to  their  "  own  Mother  Church,"  as  they  set 
sail  for  America.     Not  until  they  set  about  their  own  Church- 
making  in   New   England  did  they  separate  from  the  dear 

1  See  Burke's  History  of  Virginia,  I,  304. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  9,  133,  note. 


84  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

English  mother.  Thus  in  Virginia  there  was  a  considerable 
sprinkling  of  Puritans,  who  could  without  scruple  take  the 
oath  of  supremacy.  A  considerable  number  came  over  in 
Wyatt's  term.  The  apostle  Whitaker  was  himself  a  Puritan. 
"  Here,"  said  he,  u  neither  surplice  nor  subscription  is  spoken 
of."1  Even  the  Pilgrims  (Separatists)  of  Plymouth  would 
have  met  a  welcome  in  Virginia  had  they  accepted  the  invi- 
tation sent  after  their  first  hard  winter.  2 

A  change  in  the  attitude  of  Virginia  toward  the  Puritans 
appeared  about  1639,  during  Wyatt's  second  term,  as  a 
reflection  of  the  struggle  in  England.  There  the  Puritans 
had  espoused  the  side  of  the  parliament,  and  the  cause  of  the 
king  and  Church  had  become  identical.  Already  had  Arch- 
bishops Bancroft  and  Laud  fulminated  against  allowing 
Puritans  in  the  royal  province  of  Virginia,  distinguished  by 
its  statutory  zeal  for  Church  and  king ;  and  Charles  had 
Severer  issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  their  admission  into  the 
leasures.  colony.  For  this  reason  the  Virginia  authorities,  looking  on 
the  Puritans  in  England  as  rebels,  soon  learned  to  consider 
all  Puritans  everywhere  as  heretics,  and  became  anxious  to 
take  such  steps  as  would  "  prevent  the  infection  from  reaching 
this  colony"  in  larger  measure  than  was  already  present. 

The  first  action,  in  1642,  was  to  strengthen  the  establish- 
ment against  all  opponents.  To  this  end  the  legislature 

1  Bancroft,  I,  206 ;    Fiske,  Old  Virginia,  I,  301. 

2  Occasionally,  an  act  of  punishment  took  place  for  disrespect  toward  the 
establishment.     Thus,  in  1634,  Henry  Coleman  was  sentenced  to  excommuni- 
cation for  forty  days,  for  "  using  scornful  speeches  and  putting  on  his  hat  in 
Church."     At  the  end  of  that  period  he  was  ordered  to  publicly  acknowl- 
edge his  offence  and  ask  forgiveness.     (Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  144.) 
The  notable  thing  in  the  act  is  that  the  civil  court  imposed  a  spiritual 
penalty.     Later,  Stephen  Reek,  for  ridiculing  Archbishop  Laud,  was  con- 
demned to  two  hours  in  the  pillory,   a  fine  of  £50,  and  to  be  jailed  at  the 
governor's  pleasure.      (Howison,  Virginia,  II,    148.)     But  such  actions  had 
no  relation  to  the  spirit  of  intolerance,  and  were  doubtless  approved  by  the 
Puritans  themselves,  who,  on  their  coming  to  Virginia,  had  found  no  reason 
to  separate  from  the  Church  in  which  they  were  at  home  in  England.     They 
were  forced  into  dissent  altogether  against  their  will. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  85 

enacted  an  elaborate  law  for  the  government  of  the  Church. l 
This  provided  for  a  rigid  performance  of  the  Church  of 
England  "  liturgie,  according  to  the  booke  of  common  prayer, 
allowed  by  his  Ma'tie  and  confirmed  by  consent  of  parliament." 
It  also  provided  for  a  "  yearly  meeting  of  the  ministers  and 
church-wardens  before  the  commander  and  commissioners  of 
every  county  court,  in  the  nature  of  a  visitation."  This  act 
was  accompanied  by  another  against  the  Romanists.  Such  were  Romanists, 
to  be  disfranchised,  and  any  priests,  coming  into  the  colony, 
were  to  be  expelled  within  five  days.  2  The  latter  action  was 
to  guard  against  the  danger  of  "infection"  from  Roman 
Catholic  Maryland. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  above  demand  for  con- 
formity would  have  disturbed  the  Puritan  element  already  in 
Virginia  had  not  the  scarcity  and  quality  of  the  established 
clergy  compelled  them  to  look  elsewhere  for  religious  teachers. 
The  number  of  the  clergy  was  very  small,  and  supposing 
them  to  be  of  the  most  devoted  spirit,  they  were  far  too  few 
to  minister  to  the  people,  who  were  not  gathered  in  towns, 
but  scattered  on  plantations.  In  recognition  of  this  lack  of 
ministers,  the  legislature  at  sundr}r  times  made  efforts  to  in- 
crease their  number  by  urging  emigration  and  offering  rewards 
for  their  importation.  The  quality  of  the  clergy,  also,  had 
already  begun  to  express  those  scandalous  features,  of  which 
at  a  later  day  so  much  complaint  was  made. 

Because  of  such  conditions  the  Puritans  in  Nansemond 
County,  leaders  among  whom  were  Richard  Bennett  and 
Daniel  Gookin,  bethought  them  of  sending  to  Boston  for 
religious  aid. 3  Philip  Bennett,  a  ship-master,  carried  to  the 
governor  of  Massachusetts  a  letter  descriptive  of  the  religious 
needs,  and  asking  that  ministers  be  sent  to  Virginia.  This 
"  Macedonian  Cry  "  stirred  the  hearts  of  the  New  England 

1  Hening's  Statutes,  I,  240. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  269. 

3  Bancroft,   United  States,  I,  206;   Bacon,  American  Christianity,  p.  48; 
Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  212;  Fiske,  Old  Virginia,  I,  303. 


86  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Puritans,  who  in  solemn  conclave  deputed  three  ministers  to 
the  mission.  They  were  William  Thomson  of  Braintree, 
John  Knowles  of  Watertown,  and  Thomas  James  of  New 
Haven.  They  immediately  departed  for  Virginia,  taking 
with  them  a  letter  from  Governor  Winthrop  to  the  governor 
of  Virginia,  Sir  William  Berkeley. 

Berkeley.  Berkeley  had  just  come  to  the  province,  and  brought  with 
him  a  spirit  "  very  malignant  to  the  way  of  the  Churches  in 
New  England,"  believing  that  "  to  tolerate  Puritanism  was  to 
resist  the  king."  To  such  feeling  he  gave  sharp  expression 
in  his  reception  of  the  New  England  ministers,  who  were  at 
once  made  to  understand  that  they  were  very  unwelcome  in 
the  colony. l 

The  visiting  ministers  were  not  discouraged  by  the  churlish 
behaviour  of  Berkeley,  but  began  their  proposed  work  in 
Nansemond,  and  thereupon  the  governor  procured  the  passage 
of  a  law  requiring  the  "  governor  and  council  to  take  care 
that  all  non-conformists  be  compelled  to  depart  the  collony 
with  all  conveniencie."  2  This  act  of  expulsion  was  at  once 
obeyed  by  Knowles  and  James,  who  retired  into  Maryland 
and  afterward  to  New  England.  Thomson  remained  for 
several  months,  laboring  with  success,  until  he  also  was 
forced  to  leave.  A  Mr.  Durand,  apparently  a  minister,  was 
also  banished  by  the  governor;  and  Richard  Bennett,  who  had 
been  instrumental  in  bringing  the  New  England  ministers, 
found  it  desirable  to  accept  the  invitation  of  Lord  Baltimore 
to  a  refuge  in  Maryland.  The  controversy  was  not  long 
sustained,  as,  in  view  of  the  scattered  population,  it  was 
difficult  to  make  head  against  the  despotic  Berkeley.  But 
Puritan  sentiments  continued  to  be  quietly  disseminated, 

1  Berkeley's  chaplain,  Thomas  Harrison,  at  first  joined  the  governor  in 
opposing  the  missionaries,  but  was  afterward  won  to  their  side  and 
became  a  Puritan,  thus  offending  the  governor,  who  dismissed  him,  saying 
that  he  did  "  not  want  so  grave  a  chaplain."  Subsequently  Harrison  crossed 
into  Nansemond  County  and  preached  among  the  Puritan  settlers,  and  even- 
tually was  expelled  from  the  colony.  (Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New 
England,  II,  7.)  3  Hening,  I,  277. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  87 

and  Harrison,  on  his  departure  from  Virginia  (1648),  reported 
that  "  one  thousand  of  the  people,  by  conjecture,  were  of 
similar  mind."  l  Fiske  notes  that  the  Indian  massacre  of 
1644  was  variously  considered  as  a  divine  judgment  for 
harboring,  or  persecuting,  the  Puritans. 

It  would  appear  that  even  some  of  the  established  clergy 
had  become  infected  by  the  poison  of  Puritanism,2  as  in  1645 
the  assembly  enacted  a  law  to  punish  such  clergymen  as  should 
refuse  to  read  the  common  prayer,  or  conduct  service  "ac- 
cording to  the  Church  of  England."  The  delinquents  were 
mulcted  in  a  fine  of  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco.  It  was 
also  laid  upon  parents  and  masters,  under  penalties,  to  compel 
children  and  servants  to  attend  church  and  "  catechizing." 

In  one  respect  there  was  a  disturbing  influence  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Church  itself.  This  came  from  the  ambition 
of  the  Church  vestries.  These  bodies  were  the  subject  of  Vestries  and 
frequent  legislation.  Owing  to  social  conditions,  they  were  Patronase- 
often  called  upon  to  discharge  semi-civil  functions,  and 
were  ambitious  of  more  power  than  the  government  was 
willing  to  concede.  Especially  were  they  impatient  at  the 
governor's  claim  to  the  right  of  presentation  to  all  parishes, 
insisting  that  it  belonged  to  them  to  choose  and  settle  the 
ministers.  To  this  insistence  the  government  was  forced  to 
yield,  and  in  1642  the  same  legislature  which  denied  liberty 
outside  of  the  Church  declared  the  right  of  the  people  in  the 
Church  by  conceding  the  claim  of  the  vestries,  "provided 
that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Governor,  for  the  time  being, 
to  admit  and  elect  such  a  minister  as  he  shall  allow  of  in 
James  Citty  parish."  3  The  governor  was  minded  to  have 
a  decisive  voice  in  the  selection  of  his  own  minister. 

This  loss  of  patronage  by  the  governor  gave  great  offence 
to  the  "  ardent  and  narrow-minded  "  Nicholson,  nearly  fifty 
years  later,  and  he  endeavored  to  restore  the  right  to  the 


1  Campbell's  Virginia,  p.  211. 

2  Hening,  I,  311. 


8  Ibid.,  1,240. 


88  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

governor's  office.  An  extreme  high-churchman,  he  carried 
the  matter  to  England  and  secured  from  Attorney  General 
Northey  an  opinion  against  the  act  of  1642,  which  he  sent 
to  all  the  vestries  in  the  colony.  But  they  were  too  firmly 
intrenched  in  their  position  by  time  and  use  to  be  disturbed 
or  affected.1  They  went  on  their  own  way  and  too  often 
used  their  power  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  Church  and 
people.  Much  complaint  was  made  of  their  proceedings 
from  time  to  time,  especially  for  frequent  refusal  to  install 
ministers  as  rectors,  preferring  to  hire  them  from  year  to  year, 
in  order  "to  make  slaves  of  them."  Godwyn's  letter  to 
Berkeley  complained  that :  "  Ministers  are  most  miserably 
handled  by  their  Plebeian  Juntos,  the  Vesteries  ; "  that  they 
were  browbeaten  and  poorly  paid,  and  there  was  no  induce- 
ment for  good  men  to  come  from  England.2 

The  specially  notable  feature  in  this  situation,  aside  from 
its  influence  on  the  state  of  religion,  is  the  fact  that  it  marks 
the  first  step  towards  disestablishment,  unconsciously  taken, 
indeed,  and  with  no  thought  of  such  an  issue.  At  the  same 
time  it  was  a  stride  towards  the  freedom  of  the  Church,  the 
first  and  successful  protest  in  the  Church  itself  against  the 
interference  of  the  civil  power. 

Despite  the  presence  of  this  unsuspected  seed  of  disunion, 
the  leaders  in  Virginia  seem  to  have  felt  that,  with  the 
Puritan  services  suppressed,  the  condition  of  the  Church  was 
prosperous  in  Berkeley's  first  term  as  governor.  A  tract 
published  in  London  in  1649,  entitled,  "  A  Perfect  Descrip- 
tion of  Virginia  "^  says:  "They  have  twenty  Churches  in 
Virginia,  and  the  Doctrines  and  orders  after  the  Church  of 
England.  The  Ministers'  Livings  are  esteemed  worth  at  least 
.£100  per  annum;  they  are  paid  by  each  planter  so  much 
Tobacco  per  Pole  and  so  many  bushels  of  corn ;  they  live  all 
in  peace  and  love." 

1  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  367. 

2  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  659. 
8  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  II. 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  89 

With  the  accession  of  Cromwell  to  power  in  England,  the  Cromwell, 
intolerance  of  Virginia  received  a  temporary  check.  Com- 
missioners from  the  commonwealth,  one  of  whom,  Bennett, 
succeeded  Berkeley  as  governor,  came  out  to  visit  the  colo- 
nies and  regulate  their  affairs.  By  an  agreement  between 
them  and  the  colonial  legislature,  all  oppressions  were  forbid- 
den, and  "  the  use  of  the  book  of  common-prayer  permitted  for 
one  year,  save  the  prayers  for  the  King." 1  It  does  not  ap- 
pear, however,  that  the  limit  of  one  year  was  regarded.  The 
Anglican  service  was  connived  at  and  continued  through  the 
commonwealth  period,  while  non-conformists  were  unmolested. 
The  direction  of  Church  affairs  was  left  to  the  people,  and 
in  relation  thereto  but  two  laws  were  passed,  in  1655  and 
1657.2  The  one  ordered  that  tithes  in  a  vacant  parish  should 
be  paid  to  the  county  court.  The  other  formally  committed 
to  the  vestries  and  people  the  care  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  an 
act  which  would  possibly  have  soon  issued  in  an  entire  sepa- 
ration of  Church  from  State,  had  not  the  restoration  of  the 
kingdom  put  an  end  to  its  validity. 

The  liberalizing  tendency  of  the  period,  however,  was  Quakers, 
not  universal,  and  in  1659  Virginia  ranged  herself  with 
Massachusetts  and  New  York  in  persecuting  Quakers.  The 
strange  zeal  which  brought  the  early  followers  of  Fox  into 
every  place  where  a  chance  of  persecution  offered,  led  some 
of  their  number  to  Virginia,  where  at  once  they  were  pro- 
scribed. We  have  no  such  detailed  account  of  proceedings 
against  them  as  exists  in  the  annals  of  Massachusetts,  but 
the  laws  to  suppress  them  were  surpassed  in  severity  by 
the  northern  colony  only  in  its  imposition  of  the  death  pen- 
alty. In  16593  the  legislature  enacted  its  first  law  against 
the  sect.  Not  anticipating  their  coming,  as  did  Massachu- 
setts, Virginia  waited  until  the  arrival  of  the  dreaded 
agitators.  Then  the  house  of  burgesses  proceeded  against 
"that  unreasonable  and  turbulent  sort  of  people,  comonly 

1  Burke,  Virginia,  II,  90 ;  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  151-159. 

2  Hening,  I,  400,  433.  3  Ibid.,  I,  532. 


90  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

called  Quakers."  Shipmasters  were  forbidden  to  bring  them 
to  the  colony  under  a  penalty  of  .£100.  The  same  penalty 
was  ordered  for  any  person  "entertaining"  any  Quaker. 
No  person  could  publish  or  dispose  of  their  books.  All  mem- 
bers of  the  sect  in  the  colony  were  to  be  arrested  and  impris- 
oned until  "they  abjure  the  country,"  and  then  were  to 
depart  with  all  speed  and  not  return  again.1  If  banished 
Quakers  should  return,  they  were  to  be  punished  as  "  con- 
temners  of  the  law  and  magistrates,"  and  if  they  should  be 
"  a  third  time  so  audacious  and  impudent  as  to  return  hither," 
they  were  "  to  be  proceeded  against  as  felons." 

That  was  what  Virginia  had  to  say  to  Quakers  under  the 
commonwealth.  Under  the  Restoration,  when  Berkeley  had 
returned  as  governor,  the  repressive  laws  were  reenacted, 
though  with  somewhat  less  severe  penalties.2  In  1661  it  was 
ordered  that  Quakers  not  attending  the  Church  service  should 
be  fined  "  under  the  statute  23d  Elizabeth  "  ;  and  any  person 
attending  a  Quaker  meeting  should  be  fined  one  hundred 
pounds  of  tobacco.  Again,  in  1663,  the  act  of  1659  was 
substantially  repassed,  with  the  substitution  of  tobacco  for 
pounds  sterling  in  the  description  of  penalty.  The  failure 
of  a  magistrate  to  enforce  the  law  was  punishable  by  a  fine 
of  two  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco. 

This  clause  of  urgency  on  the  magistrates  is  a  clear  indica- 
tion that  the  practical  severity  of  proceedings  against  the 
Quakers  was  relaxing ;  of  which  the  act  gives  another  token 
in  a  clause  permitting  the  release  of  Quakers  on  giving 
security  not  to  assemble  to  worship.  It  shows  that  the  au- 
thorities, however  hostile  in  feeling  to  the  sect,  had  recog- 
nized the  fact  that  their  exclusion  from  the  colony  had  become 
impossible.3 

1  Under  this  law  William  Robinson,  who  was  soon  afterward  hanged  at 
Boston,  was  imprisoned  for  several  months. 

2  Hening,  II,  48,  181,  198. 

8  Of  this  hostile  feeling  the  house  of  burgesses  gave  a  sharp  exhibition  in 
their  treatment  of  John  Porter,  the  member  from  Norfolk.  He  opposed  the 
act  of  1663,  and  the  house  promptly  vacated  his  seat,  "for  being  loving  to 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  91 

But  the  Quakers  held  their  ground,  though  with  many  vex- 
ations for  some  years.  Especially  did  the  petulant  Berkeley 
endeavor  to  make  things  unpleasant  for  them.1  A  large 
number  of  them  were  from  time  to  time  arraigned  and  fined. 
One  of  them,  Owen,  said,  "  Tender  consciences  must  obey 
the  law  of  God,  however  they  suffer  " ;  to  be  met  by  Berke- 
ley with  the  reply,  "  There  is  no  toleration  for  wicked  con- 
sciences." In  1672  William  Edmundson  sought  from  Berke- 
ley a  kinder  treatment  of  the  Friends,  but  could  obtain  no 
satisfaction.  On  his  complaining  to  Major  General  Bennett 
that  the  governor  "  was  very  peevish  and  brittle,"  the  Gen- 
eral asked,  "Did  he  call  you  dog,  rogue?" — "No,"  said 
Edmundson.  "  Then,"  was  the  reply,  "  you  took  him  in  his 
best  humor,  those  being  his  usual  terms  when  he  is  very 
angry ;  for  he  is  an  enemy  to  every  appearance  of  good." 

After  Berkeley's  time  we  read  of  no  further  molestation  of 
the  Quakers,  though  it  was  not  until  the  next  century  that 
they  obtained  from  legislation  that  relief  in  the  matter  of 
tithes,  oaths,  and  military  service,  which  their  consciences 
demanded.2  It  is  notable  that  the  final  act  of  exemption 
from  all  prescriptive  penalties,  an  act  which  classes  them 
with  the  Mennonites  as  "those  peaceable  and  industrious 
people,"  was  not  passed  until  1783. 

The  Restoration  put  an  end  to  the  qualified  liberty  which  The 
the  commonwealth  had  allowed  in  Virginia,  and   Berkeley     ei 
returned   to   his   government   fully  prepared   to   assert  the 
claims  of  the  Church  of  England.     His  instructions  from  the 
king  enjoined  him  to  "  special  care  that  the  Common  Prayer, 

the  Quakers."  Such  a  proceeding  looks  like  a  high-hauded  interference 
with  the  limited  liberty  of  debate  which  obtained  in  deliberative  bodies  of 
the  day,  but  it  is  probable  that  Porter  had  given,  outside  of  the  house,  other 
evidence  of  friendliness  to  the  proscribed  sect.  On  his  purgation  he  was 
offered  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy  and  he  refused  them,  to  be  at 
once  expelled. 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  201. 

2  Hening,  Statutes,  III,  298;  VIII,  242  ;  IX,  34;  X,  201,  314,  334,  362, 
417  ;  XI,  252,  503. 


92  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

as  now  established,  be  read  each  Sunday  and  Holy  Day,  and 
the  blessed  Sacraments  administered  according  to  the  Rights 
of  the  Church  of  England."  He  was  ordered  to  care  for  the 
Churches,  and  have  more  built ;  to  see  also  that  the  ministers 
were  supported,  homes  built  for  them  with  glebes  of  one 
hundred  acres  each.1  In  edifying  contrast  with  the  usual 
intent  of  the  establishment,  and  also  with  the  legislation 
immediately  enacted  in  the  colony,  the  king's  instructions 
further  declared:  "and  because  we  are  willing  to  give  all 
possible  encouragement  to  persons  of  different  persuasions  in 
matters  of  Religion  to  transport  themselves  thither  with  their 
stock,  You  are  not  to  suffer  any  man  to  be  molested  or  dis- 
quieted in  the  exercise  of  his  Religion,  so  he  be  content  with 
a  quiet  and  peaceable  enjoying  it,  and  not  giving  therein 
offence  or  scandall  to  the  Government." 

Berkeley,  it  would  seem,  considered  that  to  himself,  as  the 
government,  any  non- Anglican  worship  was  so  great  an  of- 
fence as  to  negative  all  the  tolerance  of  his  instructions.  His 
stringent  first  legislation  in  1661 2  enacted  stringent  laws.  The  old 
law  of  1642  was  revived,  and  to  it  were  added  requirements, 
that  "  the  whole  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  should  be 
thoroughly  read  every  Sunday " ;  that  the  ministers  should 
preach  every  Sunday,  and  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  at 
least  twice  a  year,  and  that  no  catechism  should  be  used 
other  than  that  appointed  by  the  canons.  Another  law  de- 
clared that  no  ministers,  "  but  such  as  were  ordained  by  some 
Bishop  in  England,"  could  be  allowed  in  the  colony.  All 
others  were  to  be  sent  away.  Still  another  statute  limited 
the  right  of  performing  the  marriage  service  to  ministers  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  declared  the  children  of  mar- 
riages by  other  ministers  illegitimate.  In  the  following  year 
the  legislature  vented  its  wrath  against  the  "many  schis- 
matical  persons,  so  averse  to  the  established  religion  and  so 

1  Virginia  Historical  Society,  July,  1895,  p.  15  ;  Anderson,  Colonial  Church, 
II,  548. 

2  Hening,  II,  46,  47,  49. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND   ESTABLISHMENTS  93 

filled  with  the  new-fangled  conceits  of  their  own  heretical 
inventions,  as  to  refuse  to  have  their  children  baptized." 
Then  followed  penalties  for  such  refusal,  and  it  was  ordered 
that  no  non-conformist  could  teach,  even  in  private,  under 
pain  of  banishment.1  The  same  session  made  a  new  vestry 
law,  constituting  a  vestry  of  twelve  in  each  parish,  giving 
power  to  levy  all  taxes,  and  also  to  fill  all  vacancies  in  their 
own  body.  Thus  "the  control  passes  from  the  parish  to  a 
close  corporation  which  the  parish  could  neither  alter  nor 
direct." 

These  severe  measures  reinstated  bigotry  in  greater  force 
than  it  had  ever  held  in  Virginia,  and  many  of  the  more 
liberal  minded,  specially  from  the  Puritans  in  Nansemond, 
went  over  into  North  Carolina.  This  with  the  previous 
departure  of  Puritans  to  Maryland,  estimated  (probably  over- 
estimated) by  Howison  as  to  the  number  of  one  thousand, 
reacted  on  the  colony  to  its  very  serious  moral  and  religious 
loss.  All  accounts  agree  that  the  condition  of  religious 
affairs  was  deplorable.  Besides  the  departure  of  the  non- 
conformist element,  two  other  causes  of  this  condition  are 
noted.  The  one  was  the  peculiar  character  of  settlement,  Scattered 
not  in  towns  and  villages,  but  on  large  plantations.  The  settlements- 
planter  lived  in  the  midst  of  his  wide  tract,  surrounded  by 
his  family  and  servants,  with  no  neighbors  within  miles. 
Frequent  social  or  religious  gatherings  were  difficult.  The 
Church  thus  suffered,  and  the  people  were  largely  strangers 
to  its  services,  with  the  consequences  of  much  dissoluteness 
of  life. 

The  pamphlet,  Virginia's  Cure:2  Discovering  the  true  "Virginia's 
ground  of  that  church's  unhappiness,  and  the  only  true  Remedy. 
Presented  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  1661,  enlarges  on  the 
evils  of  this  scattered  condition.  It  calls  this  "settling 
remote  from  the  Church  "  by  the  hard  name  of  "  Sacrilege," 
as  causing  "  the  Sin  of  robbing  God  of  his  Publick  Worship 
and  Service  in  the  House  of  Prayer."  It  further  complains 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  201.  2  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III. 


94  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  great  destitution  of  Churches  and  ministers,  that  many 
parishes  were  without  Church  buildings,  and  that  not  more 
than  one-fifth  of  the  parishes  were  supplied  with  ministers. 
As  to  the  remedy,  the  "  Cure  "  desired  more  and  better  minis- 
ters, with  a  bishop  to  direct  them.  This  appears  to  be  the 
first  outcry  for  an  American  episcopate  so  frequently  heard  in 
after  years.  It  is  echoed  in  this  same  year,  1661,  by  the 
Rev.  Philip  Mallory,  who  was  sent  to  England  to  obtain 
assistance  for  the  Virginia  Churches,  and  insisted  that  the 
government  should  "  send  a  bishop  so  soon  as  there  should 
be  a  city  for  a  see."  l 

Clerical  But  the  most  baleful  influence  was  in  the  moral  character 

morals.  Q£  mos^  of  ^ne  ministers  in  the  colony.  The  majority  were 
men  of  disrepute  in  England  who  had  emigrated  to  Virginia, 
either  to  retrieve  their  reputation  or  to  indulge  their  vices 
unchecked.  They  were  profane  swearers,  brawlers,  drunk- 
ards, gamblers,  and  licentious.  This  shameful  character 
received  statutory  recognition  in  the  laws  of  1669  and  1705  2 
against  infidelity,  blasphemy,  swearing,  Sabbath-breaking, 
adultery,  etc.,  which  specially  provided  that  "clergymen 
guilty  of  any  of  these  crimes  "  were  not  to  be  exempted  from 
the  penalties  of  the  law !  To  suppose  that  the  moral  character 
of  the  clergy  did  not  give  reason  for  that  provision,  changes 
the  statute  into  a  monstrous  and  gratuitous  insult  to  the 
Church  and  its  ministry,  —  an  impossible  thing  for  a  legisla- 
ture imbued  with  reverence  for  the  Church  and  its  orders. 

Morgan  Godwyn,  in  the  letter  to  Berkeley  already  quoted, 
wrote,  "  Two  thirds  of  the  preachers  are  made  up  of  leaden 
lay  priests  of  the  vestry's  ordination,  and  are  both  the  shame 
and  grief  of  the  rightly  ordained  clergy  here."3  This  God- 
wyn was  a  clergyman,  who  spent  some  time  in  Virginia  and 
addressed  the  Bishops  of  England  praying  for  a  godly  minis- 
try. That  address  is  lost.  Godwyn  was  called  by  the  Vir- 
ginia agents  in  London,  "an  inconsiderable  wretch,"  but  an 

i  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  251.  2  Hening,  III,  171,  358. 

8  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  278. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  95 

abundance  of  other  proof  shows  that  his  testimony  in  regard 
to  the  Virginia  clergy  is  not  to  be  invalidated. 

Hammond's  famous  Leah  and  Rachel,  or  Two  Fruitful 
Sisters,  Virginia  and  Maryland  (London,  1656),1  uses 
strong  language.  Speaking  of  the  efforts  to  obtain  ministers 
from  England,  it  says,  "  But  Virginia  savoring  not  hand- 
somely in  England,  very  few  of  good  conversation  would 
adventure  thither  (as  thinking  it  a  place  wherein  surely 
the  fear  of  God  was  not),  yet  many  came,  such  as  wore 
Black  Coats,  and  could  babble  in  a  Pulpit,  roare  in  a  Tavern, 
exact  from  their  Parishioners,  and  rather  by  their  dissolute- 
ness destroy,  than  feed,  their  Flocks."  The  pamphlet  further 
says  that  some  of  these  reprobate  persons  were  by  the 
authorities  "questioned,  silenced,  and  forced  to  depart  the 
country." 

That  such  charges  were  just  is  further  indicated  by  the 
acknowledgments  of  men  with  every  inducement  to  prove 
them  slanderous,  if  such  proof  were  possible.  Thus  Ander- 
son, a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  an  historian 
giving  many  instances  of  special  pleading  for  the  claims  and 
honor  of  the  Church,  writing  of  the  sad  condition  of  the  Vir- 
ginia establishment,2  says,  "  Endowments  by  the  Colonial 
Legislature  only  magnified  the  evil.  They  bribed  to  indo- 
lence ministers  already  settled  in  the  province  and  attracted 
from  the  mother  country  others,  who  had  long  been  a  reproach 
to  it.  ...  Not  a  few  of  the  clergy  remained  steadfast,  .  .  . 
worthy,  prudent,  and  pious,  meeting  with  the  love,  respect, 
and  encouragement  that  such  men  may  deserve  to  expect.  But 
these,  it  must  be  confessed,  were  exceptions  to  the  general 
character  of  the  clergy." 

To  this  may  be  added  the  testimony  of  Meade,3  Bishop  of 
Virginia,  1829-1862:  "Immense  were  the  difficulties  in 
getting  a  full  supply  of  ministers  of  any  character ;  and  of 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III. 

2  History  of  Colonial  Church,  III,  217,  221. 

3  Old  Churches  and  Families  of  Virginia,  pp.  14-18  ;  Hening,  II,  157. 


96  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

those  who  came  how  few  were  faithful  and  duly  qualified  for 
the  station !  .  .  .  It  is  a  well  established  fact  that  some,  who 
were  discarded  from  the  English  Church,  yet  obtained  livings 
in  Virginia.  .  .  .  There  was  not  only  defective  preaching, 
but  most  evil  living  among  the  clergy.  .  .  .  One  of  them 
was  for  years  president  of  a  jockey  club ;  another  fought  a 
duel  in  sight  of  the  very  Church  in  which  he  had  performed 
the  solemn  offices  of  religion :  another  quarreled  with  his 
vestry  violently,  and  on  the  next  Sunday  preached  from  the 
words  of  Nehemiah, '  And  I  contended  with  them,  and  cursed 
them,  and  smote  certain  of  them,  and  plucked  off  their 
hair.'" 

Governor  Berkeley's  testimony  in  the  matter  has  been  fre- 
quently quoted  and  is  not  to  be  set  down  to  his  constitutional 
bile.  It  is  in  his  official  reply  to  the  annual  "Inquiries  "  of 
1671  from  the  home  government  as  to  the  state  of  the 
province,  and  reads,  "  As  to  religious  teaching  —  We  have 
48  parishes  and  our  ministers  are  well  paid,  and  by  my 
consent  should  be  better,  if  they  would  pray  oftener  and 
preach  less.  But  as  of  all  other  commodities,  so  of  this,  the 
worst  are  sent  us,  and  we  had  few  that  we  could  boast  of 
since  the  persecution  in  Cromwell's  tiranny  drove  divers 
worthy  men  hither." 

The  sole  purpose  in  noting  this  degeneracy  in  the  Virginia 
clergy  is  to  mark  it  as  a  powerful  factor  in  the  question  of 
Church  and  State.  Accounts  agree  that  the  moral  condition 
of  the  people  generally  was  not  of  a  high  order,  but  even 
loose  laymen  object  to  clergymen  whose  morals  are  no  better 
than  their  own.  Says  Meade,  "  It  is  not  wonderful  that  dis- 
affection should  take  place,  and  dissent  begin."  Long  before 
the  fall  of  the  establishment  in  Virginia,  the  immense  majority 
of  the  people  were  dissenters,  many  of  them  alienated  from 
the  Episcopal  Church  by  this  condition  of  its  clergy. 

Another  less  direct  means  may  be  found  in  the  govern- 
Schooisand  mental  restrictions  on  intellectual  life.  Schools  were  rari- 
prmtmg.  ^^  an(j  printing  was  forbidden.  Commissary  Blair  found 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  97 

immense  difficulty  in  founding  his  college  at  Williamsburg. 
Berkeley,  in  the  above-quoted  reply,  exults  over  the  lack : 
"  But  I  thank  God "  —  it  is  a  consolation  to  him  for  the 
immorality  of  the  clergy  —  "  there  are  no  free  schools  nor 
printing ;  and  I  hope  we  shall  not  have  these  hundred  years  : 
for  learning  has  brought  disobedience  and  heresy  and  sects 
into  the  world,  and  printing  has  divulged  them  and  libels 
against  the  best  government.  God  keep  us  from  both !  "  In 
1682  Governor  Culpepper  and  the  council  had  before  them  a 
certain  John  Buckner,  who  had  been  guilty  of  printing  the 
laws  of  1680,  and  commanded  him  not  to  print  anything! 
The  first  evidence  of  printing  thereafter  in  Virginia  was  in 
the  Revised  Laws,  edition  of  1733.1  In  1683  Lord  Howard 
of  Effingham  succeeded  Culpepper  in  Virginia,  and  the  royal 
instructions  commanded  him  to  "  allow  no  person  to  use  a 
printing  press  on  any  occasion  whatsoever."2 

In  the  year  following  the  arrival  of  a  governor,  whose 
instructions  were  so  narrow,  there  came  into  Virginia  the 
man  whose  influence  in  the  cause  of  religious  liberty  in  the 
colonies  must  be  reckoned  as  second  to  that  of  but  few  others. 
This  was  Francis  Makemie,  the  first  Presbyterian  minister  in  Makemie. 
America.  Born  and  educated  in  Ireland,  he  was  ordained  in 
1681  by  the  presbytery  of  Laggan  to  missionary  work  in  the 
colonies.  He  went  first  to  Barbadoes  and  soon  thereafter 
came  to  Virginia.  He  settled  in  Accomac,  where  was  his 
home  until  his  death  in  1708.  A  man  of  great  devotion  and 
courage,  he  not  only  labored  diligently  in  the  neighborhood 
of  his  home,  but  also  spent  much  time  in  preaching  tours, 
extending  them  into  Carolina,  and  so  far  north  as  New  York. 
It  was  in  the  latter  colony  that  those  experiences  were  suf- 
fered, which  gave  him  his  high  place  in  the  history  of  religious 
freedom,  and  which  will  be  detailed  when  we  come  to  tell  the 
story  of  that  province.  He  "  durst  not  deny  preaching  and 
hoped  he  never  should,  while  it  was  wanting  and  desired."  3 

1  Hening,  II,  518.  2  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  594. 

8  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  371 ;  Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  p.  40. 


98  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

In  Virginia  he  suffered  many  annoyances  from  the  authorities, 
but  does,  not  seem  to  have  been  subjected  to  any  severity.  He 
was  the  first  dissenting  minister  in  Virginia  to  obtain  a  cer- 
tificate under  the  English  toleration  act  of  1689,  wherewith 
William  and  Mary  signalized  their  accession  to  the  throne. 
Together  with  this  certificate  Makemie  obtained  licenses  for 
two  houses  in  Accomac  as  places  of  dissenting  worship,  to 
which  still  another  was  added  by  1704.1 

Toleration  The  Virginia  legislature  was  most  grudgingly  compelled 
to  recognize  the  toleration  act.  Its  first  certificate,  that  to 
Makemie,  was  not  issued  until  1699 ;  and  in  after  years,  as 
will  presently  appear,  every  new  variety  of  religious  worship 
was  forced  to  extort  its  rights  under  the  act,  by  dint  of  much 
effort  and  clamor,  and,  at  times,  of  great  suffering.  Notwith- 
standing this,  Beverly  states  that  "liberty  of  conscience  is 
given  to  all  other  congregations  pretending  to  Christianity, 
on  condition  that  they  submit  to  the  parish  dues."2 

In  the  following  years,  some  exemptions  from  this  condi- 
tion were  granted,  because  of  special  influence  and  spasms 
of  unwonted  legislative  clemency.  Many  of  the  Huguenot 
refugees  found  their  way  to  the  colonies,  and  a  number  of 
those  who  came  to  Virginia  were  in  1700  organized  by  the 
governor  and  council  into  "The  Huguenot  Parish  of  King 
William  " ;  of  which  parish  it  was  ordered  that  "  the  inhabit- 
ants be  left  at  their  own  liberty  to  agree  with  and  pay  their 
minister,  as  the  circumstances  will  permit."  3  In  1730,  through 
the  influence  of  Governor  Spotswood,  the  same  exemption 
was  granted  to  the  German  Lutherans  of  Germanna.  But 
these  favors  were  quite  exceptional,  and  it  does  not  appear 


1  Beverly  in  his  History  of  Virginia,  in  an  amusing  effort  to  apologize  for 
this  success  of  dissenters,  remarks  :  "Those  counties,  where  the  Presbyte- 
rian meetings  are,  produce  very  mean  tobacco,  and  for  that  reason  can  not 
get  an  orthodox  minister  to  stay  amongst  them :  but  whenever  they  could 
the  people  very  orderly  went  to  Church." 

2  History  of  Virginia,  p.  226. 

3  Hening,  III,  478  ;  IV,  306  ;  Virginia  Historical  Collection,  V,  60. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS  99 

that  the  other  dissenters  were  relieved  of  Church  rates  until 
the  Revolution  brought  the  fall  of  the  establishment. 

For  many  years,  indeed,  though  the  sentiments  of  a  large 
proportion  of  the  people  were  averse  to  the  established 
Church,  there  was  yet  little  growth  of  dissenting  bodies. 
Most  of  the  aversion  was  due  to  irreligion,  rather  than  to 
any  force  of  conscience  or  desire  for  non-conforming  worship. 
There  was  great  neglect  of  worship,  and  the  legislature  was 
almost  yearly  exerting  itself  to  force  the  people  to  attend 
services  and  to  bring  their  children  for  baptism.  Acts  were 
multiplied  to  this  end,  and  to  create,  divide,  and  unite 
parishes,  in  order  to  facilitate  attendance  on  the  established 
Church.1  There  was  a  strenuous  governmental  effort  to. 
counteract :  first,  the  dissent  of  indifference  ;  and  second,  the 
spiritual  dissent  of  the  Presbyterian  revival.  S 

In  1702,  there  were  reported  forty-nine  parishes  with  thirty- 
four  ministers,  three  Quaker  Meetings,  and  three  Presbyterian 
congregations.  Beyond  these  small  numbers  dissenting  bodies 
did  not  greatly  increase  until  the  fifth  decade  of  the  century, 
and  Governor  Spots  wood  was  able  to  write  his  famous  report 
of  1710 :2  "This  government  is  in  perfect  peace  and  tran- 
quillity, under  due  obedience  to  royal  authority  and  a  gentle- 
manly conformity  to  the  Church  of  England." 

Occasionally  there  arose  a  desire  for  old-time  persecution.  Persecution. 
In  1722  the  grand  jury  made  thirteen  presentments  of 
absentees  from  divine  service.  At  the  same  court  Messrs. 
Mosley  and  Shelton  were  tried  for  baptizing  a  child,  and 
required  to  give  bonds  for  good  behaviour,  in  default  of 
which  they  were  thrown  into  jail  and  condemned  to  suffer 
thirty-one  stripes,  "  16  in  the  evening  and  15  in  the 
morning."  3 

Meanwhile  there  was  a  continual  influx  of  elements  of 
population  which  were  eventually  to  bring  the  establishment 

1  Hening,  Statutes,  Vols.  IV-VIII,  passim. 

2  Bancroft,  United  States,  III,  29. 

8  Anderson,  History  of  Colonial  Church,  III,  216. 


100 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Baptists.  to  grief.  In  1714,  a  small  number  of  English  Baptists  settled 
in  the  southeastern  part  of  the  province;  and  thirty  years 
later  a  larger  number  came  to  the  northwestern  part  and 
settled  in  the  region  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  These  immigrations 
do  not  seem  to  have  aroused  the  immediate  opposition  of  the 
government.1  It  was  not  until  the  very  end  of  the  colonial 
period  that  the  Virginia  Baptists  were  driven  to  fight  their 
noble  battle  for  liberty  of  worship. 

other  sects.  In  1729  began  the  immigration  of  sturdy  Scotch  Irish  — 
almost  to  a  man  Presbyterian  —  which  peopled  much  of  the 
mountain  regions  about  the  head-waters  of  the  Potomac,  the 
Rappahannock,  and  the  James.2  To  them  were  added  many 
Germans,  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  first  from  the  Palatinate 
and  then  from  Pennsylvania.  These  Irish  and  Germans 
were  fortunate  in  their  location,  so  far  as  concerned  their 
freedom  of  religion.  Their  distance  from  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment served  to  obscure  the  offence  of  their  non-conformity, 
while  the  government  was  anxious  to  have  the  frontier 
settled,  as  a  "  Barrier  "  against  Indian  attack,  without  close 
scrutiny  into  the  religious  preferences  of  the  settlers. 

Methodists.  Somewhat  later  the  Methodists  began  to  come  into  the 
colony,  though  they  are  not  to  be  classed  among  the  non- 
conformists or  the  strugglers  for  religious  liberty.  As  in 
England,  so  in  Virginia,  they  avowed  their  adherence  to  the 
established  Church  and,  though  they  instituted  an  order  of 
lay  preachers,  they  insisted  on  the  administration  of  ordi- 
nances by  the  hands  of  the  regular  clergy.  They  met  with 
no  opposition  from  the  Virginia  government,  but  identified 
themselves  with  the  establishment,  thus  procuring  to  them- 
selves no  small  portion  of  odium  in  the  Revolution,  as  tories 
in  politics  and  opponents  to  full  freedom  of  worship.3  It 
was  because  of  this  cordial  regard  between  the  Methodists 

whitefieid.     and  the  establishment  that  Whitefield  was  permitted  to  freely 

1  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  553  ;  Howison,  Virginia,  II,  160. 

2  Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  p.  99. 
8  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  562. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         101 

preach  in  Virginia,  during  his  visits  to  America ;  and  it  is  to 
be  noted  that  he  so  preached  on  the  special  invitation  of 
Commissary  Blair,  the  representative  in  Virginia  of  the  bishop 
of  London,  to  whom  the  care  of  the  colonial  Church  had  been 
committed  by  the  government.1  To  this  preaching  of  White- 
field  is  doubtless  to  be  attributed  an  indirect  influence  in 
widening  the  limits  of  liberty.  Its  straightforward  gospel 
teaching  and  its  fervent  eloquence  made  a  profound  impres- 
sion in  Virginia,  as  in  other  colonies,  powerfully  aiding  in 
the  introduction  of  a  better  moral  and  religious  life. 

Among  its  most  notable  immediate  effects  was  the  almost 
dramatic  movement  in  which  Morris  and  Winston  were  the 
principal  figures.  While  there  is  no  record  that  these  men 
ever  came  into  personal  contact  with  the  great  preacher,  we 
may  take  it  as  beyond  doubt  that  they  received  their  religious 
impulse  from  his  work.  With  a  few  neighboring  families  in 
Hanover  County,  they  withdrew  themselves  from  the  services 
of  the  established  Church,  and  met  at  the  house  of  Morris  for 
worship.  As  their  numbers  grew,  Morris  built  a  reading- 
house  for  this  express  use. 

This  Samuel  Morris  is  described  as  "  a  brick-layer,  of  singu-  Morris, 
lar  simplicity  of  character ;  sincere,  devout,  earnest."  2  He 
attempted  no  exercise  of  preaching,  but  read  to  the  little  con- 
gregation from  such  religious  books  as  he  could  obtain  — 
the  Bible,  a  volume  of  Whitefield's  Sermons,  Luther's  Table- 
Talk  and  Commentary  on  Galatians.  The  leaders  of  the 
movement,  uninstructed  in  matters  of  Church  polity  and  un- 
guided  by  any  minister,  were  at  a  loss  to  decide  what  to  call 
themselves  by  way  of  religious  denomination,  and  from  their 
favorite  author  were  at  first  disposed  to  assume  the  name  of 
Lutherans. 

These  irregular  religious  services  soon  drew  the  attention 
of  the  authorities,  and  the  leaders  of  the  movement  were 
summoned  to  answer  before  the  governor  and  council.  On 

1  Campbell,   Virginia,  p.  355. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  438  ;    Howison,  Virginia,  II,  170. 


102  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

their  way  to  such  answer  they  found  a  copy  of  the  West- 
minster Confession,  with  which  they  were  so  pleased  that 
they  adopted  it  as  their  own,  and  presented  it  to  the  governor 
as  an  exhibition  of  their  creed  and  denomination.  This  book 
was  well  known  to  Governor  Gooch,  who  exclaimed,  "  These 
men  are  Presbyterians,"  and  acknowledged  their  rights  under 
the  act  of  toleration. 

Governor  Gooch  was  a  man  of  unusual  liberality  of  feeling,  in  marked 

Gooch.  contrast  with  most  of  the  royal  governors.  A  letter  of  his  is  pre- 
served in  reply  to  one  from  the  synod  of  Philadelphia,  written 
in  1738  to  solicit  the  governor's  kindly  consideration  for  the 
Presbyterians  settled  in  the  northern  part  of  the  province. 
To  this  the  governor  answered :  "  You  may  be  assured  no 
interference  shall  be  given  to  any  minister  of  their  profes- 
sion, who  shall  come  among  them,  so  as  they  conform  them- 
selves to  the  rules  prescribed  by  the  Act  of  Toleration  in 
England."  1  In  the  opinion  of  Samuel  Davies,  had  the  gov- 
ernor been  alone  in  power,  the  Presbyterians  of  Hanover 
would  have  suffered  little  annoyance.2  He  wrote :  "  The 
Hon.  Sir  William  Gooch,  our  late  governor,  discovered  a 
ready  disposition  to  allow  us  all  claimable  privileges,  and  the 
greatest  aversion  to  persecuting  measures ;  but,  considering 
the  shocking  reports  spread  abroad  concerning  us  by  officious 
malignants,  it  is  no  great  wonder  the  council  discovered  a 
considerable  reluctance  to  tolerate  us.  Had  it  not  been  for 
this,  I  persuade  myself  that  they  would  have  shown  them- 
selves the  guardians  of  our  legal  privileges." 

The  issue  of  this  first  action  of  the  authorities  seems  to 
have  been  without  oppression,  but  the  next  few  years  brought 
much  opposition,  and  it  is  estimated  that  Morris  paid  more 

1  Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  p.  103.     Gooch  was  governor  for  twenty-two 
years,  and  retired  in  1749,  "  amid  the  regrets  of  the  people.     Notwithstand- 
ing some  flexibility  of  principle,  he  was  estimable  in  public  and  private  char- 
acter.    His  capacity  and  intelligence  were  of  a  high  order,  and  were  adorned 
by  uniform  courtesy  and    dignity  and    a  singular  amenity  of  manners." 
(Campbell,  History  of  Virginia,  p.  448.) 

2  Campbell,  History  of  Virginia,  p.  448. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         103 

than  twenty  fines  for  his  steadfast  adherence   to  the  new 
movement.1 

On  the  recognition  of  their  rights  by  the  governor  the  Presbytery. 
Hanover  people  at  once  declared  themselves  Presbyterians 
and  applied  to  the  synod  of  Philadelphia.  The  synod  put 
the  matter  under  the  care  of  the  presbytery  of  Newcastle, 
which  sent  William  Robinson  to  organize  a  Church  among 
them.  He  was  the  first  non-Anglican  minister  to  preach  in 
Hanover  County,  and  very  shortly  after  so  doing  he  was  ar- 
rested for  preaching  without  a  license  from  the  government; 
but  he  was  soon  released  and  permitted  to  continue  his 
work. 

In  the  next  year,  1745,  the  presbytery  sent  two  other  min- 
isters, John  Blair  and  John  Roan,  the  latter  of  whom  was  a 
man  of  unwisdom,  and  whose  course  may  be  charged  with 
much  of  the  responsibility  for  the  subsequent  annoyances 
suffered  by  the  Presbyterians.  Not  content  with  preaching 
the  gospel,  Roan  went  out  of  his  way  to  assail  the  character 
of  the  established  clergy.  However  vulnerable  that  char- 
acter might  be,  Roan's  attack  was  both  unnecessary  and  im- 
politic. The  consequence  was  natural  enough.  The  clergy 
were  roused  to  great  indignation,  intensifying  their  opposi- 
tion to  this  lately  tolerated  dissent.  Their  complaints,  to- 
gether with  many  "  shocking  reports  of  officious  malignants," 
were  hurried  to  the  governor,  whose  sympathy  was  excited 
for  the  regular  clergy :  for,  however  he  might  be  willing  to 
tolerate  an  orderly  dissent,  he  was  too  much  of  an  Anglican 
to  permit  attacks  on  his  own  Church. 

Gooch  at  once  summoned  the  grand  jury  and  denounced 
Roan  and  Joshua  Morris,  in  whose  house  Roan  had  preached. 
In  his  charge  to  the  jury  the  governor  said,  "  It  is  not  lib-  Severe 
erty  of  conscience,  but  freedom  of  speech,  they  so  earnestly  measures- 
prosecute,  and  we  are  very  sure  that  they  have  no  manner 
of  pretence  to  any  shelter  under  the  Acts  of  Toleration."2 

1  Howison,  Virginia,  II,  174. 

2Foote,  Sketches,  p.  136  j  Burke,  Virginia,  III,  121. 


104  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  grand  jury  found  a  true  bill,  and  the  case  was  tried, 
with  the  result  that  Morris  was  heavily  fined  and  Roan,  who 
had  fled  to  Philadelphia,  was  exiled. 

The  sequence  to  this  trouble  was  continued  annoyance 
to  the  Presbyterians ;  the  authorities,  with  the  exception  of 
Gooch,  making  use  of  every  opportunity  to  hamper  and  dis- 
turb. This  they  did  by  objecting  to  licenses  for  their  minis- 
ters, granting  some  only  after  much  struggle  and  refusing 
others  altogether;  by  making  much  question  also  about  the 
number  of  preaching  houses,  and  seizing  promptly  upon  the 
offence  of  preaching  in  a  house  not  licensed.  So  long  as 
Gooch  remained  governor,  he  acted  as  mediator  between  the 
Presbyterians  and  the  council,  but  for  a  few  years  after  his 
retirement  in  1749,  the  new  movement  found  itself  "  under 
the  harrow." 

The  man  who  exerted  the  greatest  influence  in  securing 

Davies.  their  peaceful  enjoyment  of  toleration,  was  Samuel  Davies, 
than  whose  name  the  story  of  American  Presbyterianism  pre- 
sents few  more  illustrious.  Born  at  New  Castle,  Delaware,  in 
1723,  he  was  educated  in  Pennsylvania,  and,  on  his  ordina- 
tion at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  was  at  once  sent  by  the 
presbytery  to  Virginia.  In  1746  he  appeared  at  Williams- 
burg  and  sought  a  license  to  preach  from  the  government, 
which  the  council  at  first  refused,  but  by  the  governor  were  per- 
suaded to  grant.1  With  the  license  Davies  went  to  Hanover, 
"and  was  received  with  joy,  since  on  the  Sunday  before  a 
notice  had  been  fixed  on  Morris'  Reading  House  forbidding 
itinerant  preaching  and  warning  people  not  to  attend."  2 
Davies  settled  near  the  Falls  of  the  James,  and  in  1748 

Rodgers.        another  minister,  John  Rodgers,  was  sent  by  the  presbytery 
to  join  him.     It  is  very  probable  that  Rodgers  ventured  to 

1  Campbell,  p.  446. 

2  Of  Davies  it  is  said,  that  "his  fervid  eloquence  attracted  large  congrega- 
tions, including  many  Churchmen."     "Few  who  ever  heard  him  preach," 
saysHowison  (History  of  Virginia,  II,  180)  "could  entirely  resist  his  influ- 
ence."   Patrick  Henry  declared  that,  by  hearing  him  he  was  himself  first 
taught  what  an  orator  should  be. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         105 

preach  without  first  obtaining  a  license,  for  such  accusation 
was  made  against  him  when  he  applied  for  governmental 
permission.  Gooch  urged  the  Council  to  license  him,  but 
the  majority  refused,  saying,  "  We  have  Mr.  Rodgers  out, 
and  we  are  determined  to  keep  him  out."  This  determina- 
tion was  doubtless  due  to  the  ardent  opposition  of  some  of 
the  established  clergy,  who  followed  Davies  and  Rodgers  to 
Williamsburg,  to  combat  the  application.1 

It  is  stated  that  Commissary  Blair  joined  Gooch  in  urging 
the  Council  to  give  the  license.  "  The  young  men  insisted 
that  they  had  asked  nothing  but  a  right,  and  not  a  privilege." 
But  the  effort  failed,  and  Rodgers  was  forced  to  leave  the 
province,  entering  on  a  career  of  distinguished  usefulness  in 
the  north,  as  pastor  for  many  years  of  the  "  Brick  Church  " 
in  New  York,  and  moderator  of  the  first  general  assembly 
in  America.2 

Davies  was  thus  left  alone  in  Virginia,  and  presently  his 
foes  made  new  trouble  for  him  by  endeavoring  to  restrict  his 
labors.  It  was  a  necessity  of  labor  among  such  a  widely  scat- 
tered population  that  he  should  preach  in  many  different  sta- 
tions, against  which  itineracy  the  legal  point  was  made  that 
his  license  allowed  him  to  preach  in  only  one  place  or  house. 
This  new  action  carried  him  to  Williamsburg  again,  where  it 
was  sought  to  obtain  an  injunction  from  the  court  forbidding 
his  scattered  ministrations.  Davies's  answer  contended  that 
his  course  was  justified  by  the  grants  of  the  toleration  act, 
and  the  case  turned  upon  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
English  act  was  of  force  in  Virginia.  The  celebrated  Peyton 
Randolph,  the  attorney-general,  appeared  in  prosecution,  while 
Davies  pleaded  his  own  cause,  the  court  granting  his  request 

1  Foote  (Sketches  of  Virginia,  p.  165)  relates  of  one  of  them,  that  he  was 
so  furious  and  vindictive  as  to  extort  from  Gooch  the  rebuke:  "  I  am  sur- 
prised at  you  !    You  profess  to  be  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  you  come 
and  complain  of  a  man  and  wish  me  to  punish  him,  for  preaching  the  gos- 
pel.    For  shame,  Sir  !    Go  home  and  mind  your  own  duty.     For  such  con- 
duct you  deserve  to  have  your  gown  stripped  from  your  shoulders." 

2  Sprague,  Annals  of  the  American  Pulpit. 


106  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

to  be  allowed  to  speak  with  some  surprise  that  he  should  ven- 
ture ..to  cross  swords  with  so  famous  an  advocate.  Not  only 
did  he  win  his  case,  but  he  astonished  his  auditors,  some 
of  whom  said,  "  The  attorney-general  has  met  his  match  to- 
day." In  1753  Davies  visited  England  and  there  obtained 
from  Attorney-General  Northey  an  opinion  confirmatory  of 
his  own,  to  the  effect  that  the  toleration  act  of  1689  had 
the  force  of  law  in  all  parts  of  the  British  dominions.  Thus 
the  Presbyterians  of  Virginia  secured  their  rights,  so  far 
as  the  statute  did  allow.1 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  result  of  the  Presbyterian  con- 
test was  grateful  to  the  majority  of  the  people.  The  established 
Growing  Church  was  steadily  losing  ground  in  their  affection  and  re- 
disaffection.  spect>  Tnev  couid  see  nothing  but  oppression  in  forbidding 
an  irregular  worship,  where  great  distances  made  attendance 
on  the  established  Church,  to  many  a  matter  of  much  diffi- 
culty, and  to  others  impossible.  At  the  same  time  the  failure 
of  so  many  of  the  clergy  to  command  respect  still  further 
emphasized  their  alienation,  while  the  frequent  oppressive 
acts  of  the  authorities  only  served  to  nurture  a  growing 
popular  indignation. 

This  feeling  was  not  only  shared  by  the  common  people, 
but  found  expression  from  many  in  the  highest  circles  of  so- 
ciety. Some  of  them,  though  in  the  communion  of  the  estab- 
lished Church,  were  beginning  to  doubt  the  wisdom  of  the 
entire  system  of  union  between  religion  and  the  civil  power. 
Thus,  Lawrence  Washington  wrote  to  Governor  Dinwiddie : 2 
"It  has  been  my  opinion,  and  I  hope  ever  will  be,  that 
restraints  on  conscience  are  cruel  in  regard  to  those  on  whom 
they  are  imposed,  and  injurious  to  the  country  imposing 
them." 

1  For  Davies  himself,  who  had  thus  valiantly  and  wisely  been  their  cham- 
pion, he  remained  in  Virginia  only  a  few  years,  being  called  to  the  presidency 
of  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  as  successor  to  Jonathan  Edwards.    His 
tenure  of  that  office  was  but  for  eighteen  months,  when  death  cut  short  his 
singularly  brilliant  life  at  the  early  age  of  thirty-six.     (Sprague,  Annals.) 

2  Campbell,  Virginia,  p.  453. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         107 

The  letter  had  special  reference  to  Germans  contemplating 
settlement  in  Virginia,  but  deterred  by  fear  of  the  established 
Church.  Mr.  Washington  wanted  the  governor,  at  that  time 
in  England,  to  secure  some  relief  for  them  from  the  govern- 
ment, which  Dinwiddie  expressed  his  doubts  of  obtaining, 
though  himself  in  favor  of  the  desired  exemption.  It  was 
not  until  the  opening  of  the  Revolution  that  the  relief  sought, 
of  exemption  from  Church  rates,  was  accorded  to  dissenters 
by  the  colonial  legislature.1 

Dinwiddie,  whose  advent  as  governor  was  hailed  by  Davies  Dinwiddie. 
as  a  "  happy  omen,"  had  been  educated  in  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land, and  had  sincere  regard  for  the  Presbyterians.  In  his 
office  of  governor  he  was  guilty  of  no  unfriendly  acts,  though 
he  concerned  himself,  as  his  duty  required,  in  the  direction 
of  affairs  in  the  establishment.  Of  this  direction  two  curious 
incidents  are  preserved  in  his  own  letters.2  One  is  in  a  letter 
to  St.  Anne's  Parish,  December  13,  1751,  presenting  "  the 
Bearer,  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Ramsay  —  I  desire  that  you  will 
receive  and  Entertain  him  as  your  Pastor."  The  other  is  a 
letter  to  the  bishop  of  London,  September  12,  1757,  in  which 
the  governor  gives  an  account  of  a  recent  trial  of  a  clergyman 
for  immorality  and  "  monstrous  crimes."  The  trial  was  before 
the  governor  and  council  and  was  really  an  ecclesiastical 
trial,  for  the  man,  having  been  found  guilty,  was  by  the 
governor  deposed  from  the  ministry  and  not  otherwise 
punished. 

The  occurrence  of  the  French  and  Indian  war,  with  its  ex- 
citements and  alarms,  so  occupied  the  minds  of  the  government 
that  attention  to  Church  affairs  made  in  its  period  but  few 
notes  in  legislation.  Nor  do  the  courts  seem  to  have  bestowed 
much  regard  upon  the  continually  increasing  number  of  dis- 
senters, who  were  practically  left  to  follow  their  preferences 
without  molestation.  Only  two  acts  of  the  legislature  during 
that  period  call  for  remark. 

1  Hening,  IX,  164. 

2  Virginia  Historical  Collection,  III,  14 ;  IV,  695. 


108 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Papists. 


Two-Penny 
Act. 


One  is  the  act  of  1756,1  "for  Disarming  Papists."  All 
Papists  were  required  to  surrender  their  arms  and  ammuni- 
tion, on  penalty  of  three  months'  imprisonment,  the  loss  of 
their  arms,  and  fine.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  measure, 
like  a  similar  proposition  in  Pennsylvania,  was  more  political 
than  religious.  The  act  observed  that  the  "Papists  were 
dangerous  at  this  time  "  of  war  with  their  fellow-religionists. 
This  does  not  explain  another  curious  clause  of  the  act,  which 
forbade  a  Papist  to  keep  a  horse  "  above  the  value  of  <£5,  on 
pain  of  forfeiture."  Only  a  desire  to  annoy  would  seem  to 
account  for  that  provision. 

The  other  piece  of  legislation  to  be  noted  is  the  act  of  1758, 
called  the  "  Two-Penny  _4ct,"  which  stands  in  the  history  as 
having  a  powerful  influence  tending  both  to  religious  dises- 
tablishment and  to  political  independence.  It  should  be 
premised  that  a  law  of  1748  had  fixed  the  minister's  salary  at 
sixteen  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco.  At  the  ordinary  price 
of  tobacco  at  six  pence  per  pound,  this  made  the  ministerial 
stipend  exactly  ,£400. 

In  1755,  and  the  following  year,2  the  tobacco  crop  failed 
through  drought,  while  the  heavy  taxes  incident  to  the 
French  war  had  added  to  the  financial  burdens  of  the  people. 
Many  complaints  of  the  situation  were  carried  to  the  legisla- 
ture, and  that  body  in  1758  enacted  a  law,  "  to  run  for  ten 
months,"  that  all  debts  payable  in  tobacco  could  be  paid, 
either  in  tobacco,  or  in  money  at  the  rate  of  eighteen  shillings 
and  eight  pence  per  one  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco.  This 
reduced  the  price  of  tobacco,  for  the  purpose  of  debt  paying, 
to  two  pence  per  pound,  and  struck  two-thirds  from  the  min- 
isterial salary.  The  act  did  not  discriminate  against  the 
clergy,  but  applied  to  "  all  debts  payable  in  tobacco,"  yet  it 
affected  the  clergy  more  disastrously  than  others  ;  for,  while 
afterward  other  contracts  could  be  made  on  a  money  basis, 

1  Hening,  Statutes,  VII,  35. 

2  Campbell,    Virginia,  pp.   507-514;   Foote,    Sketches,  p.  171;   Hawks, 
Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  I,  120-126. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         109 

the  clerical  contract  was  by  law  fixed  in  terms  of  tobacco. 
Besides,  the  price  of  tobacco  immediately  rose  above  the 
usual  rate,  and  the  holders  of  it,  compounding  with  the  clergy 
at  the  ruinous  reduction,  really  enriched  themselves  at  the 
expense  of  the  ministerial  purse. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  act  was  thoroughly  unjust, 
and  no  wonder  is  caused  by  the  natural  outcry  of  the  clergy. 
Rev.  John  Camm,  of  York  Hampton  Parish,  assailed  the  law 
in  a  pamphlet,  The  Two-Penny  Act,  which  was  answered  by 
Colonels  Bland  and  Carter.  But  no  argument  could  justify 
the  law.  Sherlock,  bishop  of  London,  denounced  the  act ; 
and  the  king  in  council  refused  to  approve,  though  it  does 
not  appear  that  it  was  ever  formally  declared  void. 

Camm  brought  suit  against  his  vestry  for  the  full  amount 
of  salary  for  several  years,  at  the  rate  of  sixteen  thousand 
pounds  of  tobacco  at  six  pence  per  pound,  the  claim  reaching 
to  nearly  £2400.  On  this  the  house  of  burgesses  took  the 
remarkable  action  of  voting  to  support  the  vestry  in  its 
defence  —  a  vote  notable  in  two  ways :  first,  that  the  interfer- 
ence of  the  legislature  in  such  a  matter  was  as  unwarrantable 
as  it  was  unprecedented ;  and  second,  that  it  notes  the  first 
legislative  action  of  Virginia  towards  independence.  The 
legislature  was  so  bent  on  justifying  its  own  law  that  it  was 
blind  to  its  own  offence  in  thus  interfering  with  the  course  of 
justice.  The  case  went  against  Camm,  who  appealed  to  the 
king  in  council,  but  the  appeal  was  dismissed  on  the  ground 
of  some  informality,  and  "  the  clergy  were  left  to  take  their 
chances  in  the  Virginia  courts." 

The  next  suit  was  brought  by  Rev.  Mr.  Warrington,  and 
the  court  awarded  damages  to  him,  while  inconsistently 
declaring  that  the  law  of  1758  was  valid !  The  suit  of  Rev. 
Alexander  White  had  a  similar  issue.  The  great  issue  — 
great,  both  because  of  its  utterly  unexpected  result  and  its 
lifting  to  the  first  position  among  orators  a  man  unknown 
before  —  was  joined  in  Hanover  County  court  on  the  suit  of 
Rev.  James  Maury  in  1763.  The  court  declared  the  act  of 


110  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

1758  invalid,  as  not  approved  by  the  king,  and  ordered  that 
at  the  next  term  of  court  a  jury  should  determine  damages 
for  the  plaintiff.  The  popular  impression  was,  justly,  that  the 
whole  question  was  practically  decided  in  favor  of  the  clergy, 
and  at  the  next  term  the  council  for  defendant,  John  Lewis, 
threw  up  the  case.  No  well-known  lawyer  could  be  found 
to  take  his  place ;  and  the  case  was  well-nigh  gone  by  default, 
when  the  defendants  took  for  their  advocate  a  young,  un- 
Patrick  known,  awkward,  unfledged  lawyer,  whose  past  had  been 
Henry.  spent  in  playing  the  fiddle,  keeping  a  country  store,  swap- 
ping stories  in  taverns,  and  in  desultory  reading.  Perhaps 
never  elsewhere  has  one  action  at  once  opened  to  a  man  such 
an  avenue  of  usefulness,  and  crowned  him  with  such  imme- 
diate glory,  as  came  then  to  Patrick  Henry.  The  incident 
is  well  known  to  all,  and  needs  no  detailed  repetition  here. 
The  speech  was  the  boldest  yet  made  on  American  soil, 
maintaining  that  the  act  of  1758  was  salutary  and  right,  and 
arguing  that  a  king,  who  could  disallow  a  law  designed  for 
the  relief  of  his  distressed  subjects,  had  forfeited  his  right  to 
govern !  "  The  speech,"  says  Hawks,  "  contained  much  more 
treason  than  logic  —  an  appeal  to  men's  passions,  not  to  their 
understandings,  and  was  managed  with  consummate  skill." 

It  meant  death  to  the  "  Parsons'  Cause."  The  jury,  bound 
by  the  decision  of  the  former  term,  brought  in  a  verdict 
assessing  damages  at  one  penny.  That  showed  the  mind  of 
the  people  with  sufficient  clearness,  and  the  clergy  attempted 
no  further  suits.  It  would  have  been  well  for  them  and  for 
their  Church,  if  they  had  attempted  none  at  all,  and,  submit- 
ting to  the  immediate  hardship  of  the  time,  had  waited  relief 
from  a  wiser  legislature.  The  damage  they  suffered  was  far 
greater  than  that  represented  by  depleted  stipends.  Immense 
force  was  added  to  the  feeling  against  the  establishment,  the 
ministers  of  which  were  now  described  as  having  no  concern 
for  the  poverty  and  burdens  of  the  people,  and  only  desirous 
of  obtaining  the  last  penny  for  themselves  —  "  more  anxious 
to  enrich  themselves  than  benefit  the  souls  of  men ;  and  men 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS    111 

began  to  admit  the  suspicion  that  the  establishment  was 
proving  a  burden  instead  of  a  blessing.  It  prepared  the 
minds  of  men  for  the  final  blow  struck  in  the  stormy  times  of 
the  Revolution."  (Hawks.) 

Before  that  blow  was  struck,  another  and  justifying  reason 
for  it  was  given  by  the  renewal  of  the  spirit  of  persecution, 
in  the  most  harsh  and  foolish  actions  of  which  the  establish- 
ment  was   guilty.     They  are  the  more  remarkable  because 
coming  after  the  gradual  enlightenment  of  almost  the  entire 
colonial  period  and  on  the  eve  of  the  great  struggle  for  free- 
dom.    So  placed,  the   persecution  of   the   Baptists   may  be  Persecution 
rated  as  the  worst  and  most  inexcusable  assault  on  freedom  of  BaPtlsts- 
of   conscience   and  worship,  which  our  colonial  history  de- 
scribes.1 

As  before  noted,  Baptists  began  to  come  into  the  colony  so 
early  as  1714,  settling  quietly  and  undisturbed  at  Norfolk. 
Thirty  years  later,  others  began  settlements  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  province,  to  which  increasing  numbers  were  added 
in  the  following  years.  In  the  same  period  numbers  of  Mora- 
vians and  Mennonites  also  appeared  in  the  Blue  Ridge 
country.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  outbreak  of  perse- 
cution which  took  place  between  1765  and  1770.  Twenty 
years  before,  Governor  Gooch  had  issued  a  proclamation 
against  the  Moravians  and  Mennonites,  but  they  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  subjected  to  any  more  drastic  measures. 
They  quietly  went  about  their  own  business  and  were  undis- 
turbed, sharing  at  last  with  the  Quakers  in  the  exemptions 
of  1766.2 

Perhaps  the  bitter  cup  of  persecution  presented  to  the 
Baptists,  at  the  same  time  that  other  sects  were  obtaining  an 
enlargement  of  liberty,  may  be  charged  to  their  own  vio- 
lence of  speech.  It  was  a  time  of  much  religious  excitement 
among  the  dissenting  churches,  especially  in  the  north  of 

1  Foote,  Sketches,  pp.  314,  318  ;  Hawks,  Contributions,  I,  121 ;  Camp- 
bell, Virginia,  p.  553 ;  Howison,  Virginia,  II,  160,  168. 

2  Hening,  VIII,  242. 


112  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Virginia.1  The  Presbyterians  of  the  Shenandoah  were 
experiencing  an  almost  constant  revival  through  several 
years,  in  the  interest  and  fervor  of  which  their  Baptist  breth- 
ren shared.  But  the  latter  were  not  guided  by  the  same 
prudence  of  discussion  or  charity  of  speech  which  the  Presby- 
terians observed.  Many  of  their  preachers  were  illiterate : 
they  gave  free  rein  to  the  language  and  manner  of  passion ; 
and  with  their  vehemence  of  gesticulation  and  a  singularly 
rasping  quality  of  voice  they  wrought  their  hearers  into  a 
high  state  of  excitement.  With  it  all  they  did  not  scruple  to 
denounce  the  established  Church  and  its  clergy.  "  There 
was  a  bitterness,"  said  Hawks,  "  in  the  hatred  of  this  denomi- 
nation towards  the  established  Church,  which  surpassed  that 
of  all  others.  It  was  always  prompt  to  avail  itself  of  every 
prejudice,  which  religious  or  political  zeal  could  excite  against 
the  Church.  .  .  .  No  dissenters  in  Virginia  experienced  for 
a  time  harsher  treatment  than  the  Baptists.  They  were 
beaten  and  imprisoned,  and  cruelty  taxed  ingenuity  to  devise 
new  modes  of  punishment  and  annoyance."  It  is  but  fair  to 
conclude  that  the  former  fact  accounted  for,  though  it  could 
not  justify,  the  latter,  in  view  of  the  peace  and  quietness 
experienced  at  the  time  by  all  other  dissenting  churches. 

The  increase  of  the  Baptists,  with  their  impolitic  freedom 
of  speech,  excited  alarm  and  stern  opposition  among  church- 
men. The  clergy  of  the  establishment  preached  against  them 
as  of  the  same  sort  as  the  Anabaptists  of  Munster,  and  the 
local  authorities  learned  to  look  upon  them  as  disturbers  of 
the  peace,  to  be  suppressed  by  the  civil  power. 

The  climax  came  in  1768  when  the  sheriff  of  Spotsylvania 
arrested  John  Waller,  Lewis  Craig,  and  James  Childs,  zealous 
Baptist  preachers.  On  their  appearance  before  the  magis- 
trate, release  was  offered  if  they  would  promise  not  to  preach 
in  the  county  for  a  year  and  a  day.  This  promise  was  refused, 
and  the  men  were  imprisoned.  Craig  was  released  after  four 
weeks,  but  the  two  others  lay  in  jail  four  weeks  more. 
1  See  Foote's  Sketches. 


THE   CHURCH   OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         113 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  persecution  was  entirely  the  act 
of  local  authorities.  The  colonial  government  had  no  hand 
in  it  and  seems  to  have  considered  it  unjust.  That  certainly 
was  the  mind  of  Governor  Blair,  who  wrote  a  sharp  rebuke 
to  the  sheriff  of  Spotsylvania  County.  "  You  may  not  molest 
these  conscientious  men,"  he  wrote,  "  so  long  as  they  behave 
themselves  in  a  manner  becoming  pious  Christians.  I  am 
told  that  they  differ  in  nothing  from  our  Church  but  in  (the 
manner  of)  Baptism,  and  their  renewing  of  the  ancient  dis- 
cipline, by  which  they  have  reformed  some  sinners  and 
brought  them  to  be  truly  penitent.  ...  If  this  be  their 
behaviour,  it  were  to  be  wished  we  had  some  of  it  among  us." 

At  the  trial  of  Waller  and  Childs,  which  the  rebuke 
of  the  governor  had  no  power  to  stay,  some  notable  things 
occurred.  The  prosecuting  attorney  bore  testimony  to  their 
zeal  in  his  opening  words:  "May  it  please  your  worship, 
these  men  are  great  disturbers  of  the  peace  :  they  can  not 
meet  a  man  upon  the  road,  but  they  must  ram  a  text  of 
scripture  down  his  throat !  "  The  indictment  charged  them 
with  "  preaching  the  gospel  contrary  to  law."  This  aston- 
ishing charge  furnished  to  Patrick  Henry  the  second  oppor- 
tunity of  dramatic  exhibition  before  a  court.  He  offered  his 
services  to  defend  the  poor  preachers,  and  tradition  has  it 
that  he  rode  fifty  miles  to  do  so.  In  his  speech  he  so  dwelt 
upon  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  attempting  "to  punish  a 
man  for  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,"  that  he 
overwhelmed  the  court  and  secured  the  immediate  discharge 
of  his  clients. 

But  the  issue  of  this  case  did  not  end  the  persecution.  In 
1770  two  other  Baptist  preachers,  William  Webber  and 
Joseph  Anthony,  were  thrown  into  Chesterfield  County  jail, 
and  there  "  they  did  much  execution  by  preaching  through 
the  grates  of  their  windows."  In  Middlesex  County  several 
Baptist  ministers  were  imprisoned  and  treated  like  criminals. 
So  late  as  1772  a  letter  in  the  Virginia  Gazette  justified  the 
persecution,  charging  the  Baptists  with  heresy  and  hateful 


114  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

doctrines,  and  with  disturbing  the  peace  of  religion,  and 
denying  that  they  were  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  tolera- 
tion act.  This  was  strange  language  at  the  very  time  when 
Virginia  was  ringing  with  the  cry  for  freedom.  But  it  was 
unheeded.  The  end  of  the  persecution  had  come,  and  of  all 
persecution  in  America. 

Fail  of  the  Presently  there  was  to  pass  into  oblivion  the  religious 
merit18  establishment,  in  whose  interest  such  oppression  was  insti- 
tuted. The  Church  in  Virginia  had  grown  almost  obsolete ; 
its  methods,  its  claims,  its  arrogance  alike  hateful  to  the 
great  majority  of  the  people.  The  causes  of  this  issue  are 
not  far  to  seek.  The  unwillingness  of  the  Church  to  permit 
any  other  worship  than  its  own,  with  the  consequence  that 
many  of  the  scattered  population  were  deprived  of  all  reli- 
gious services;  its  indifference  to  the  spiritual  good  of  the 
people ;  the  corrupt  character  of  many  of  its  clergy ;  its  ran- 
cor in  prosecuting  any  dissent ;  the  growing  sense  of  injustice 
in  taxing  people  for  the  support  of  a  religion  not  their  own ; 
the  ill-starred  Parsons'  Cause,  which  left  upon  the  clergy 
and  the  Church  a  heavy,  though  unjust,  burden  of  ridicule  and 
contempt;  the  persecution  of  the  Baptists,  as  the  last  throe 
of  a  dying  tyrant ;  and  finally  the  ill-judged  effort  to  establish 
an  American  episcopate  —  an  effort  to  be  hereinafter  detailed 
—  all  together  forced  the  Church  of  England  in  Virginia  to 
a  dishonored  fall,  far  different  from  the  fate  which,  as  shall 
be  seen,  the  theocratic  establishment  of  Massachusetts  met 
with  dignity  and  composure. 

While  we  can  have  no  sympathy  with  the  spiritual  tyranny 
of  early  Massachusetts,  nor  approve  its  oppressive  measures  ; 
at  the  same  time  we  cannot  fail  to  reverence  the  high  reli- 
gious motives  of  its  leaders,  by  whom  God's  honor  was  chiefly 
to  be  sought ;  the  learning  and  pure  character  of  its  ministry ; 
its  care  for  a  "  godly  ministry "  in  every  vicinage ;  and  the 
decorous  gravity  with  which  it  adapted  itself,  though  unwill- 
ingly, to  the  growing  liberty  of  mind.  We  look  in  vain  for 
such  traits  in  the  Virginia  establishment ;  a  mere  appendage 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         115 

of  the  state,  with  no  higher  demand  than  an  outward  con- 
formity to  its  law,  and  no  more  earnest  purpose  than  to  secure 
its  own  perquisites  and  emoluments. 

Thus  the  difference  between  the  two  institutions  was 
immense.  The  Theocracy  represented  a  magnificent  dream, 
which  had  in  it  more  of  heaven  than  of  earth  —  a  superb 
effort  to  realize  in  the  world  the  purity  and  duty  of  the  City 
of  God.  The  Virginia  establishment  debased  the  things  of 
God  into  a  mere  setting  for  the  sordidness  of  earth.  In  its 
fall  there  were  few  to  mourn. 

The  details  of  its  disestablishment  will  be  noted  in  our 
study  of  the  Revolutionary  Period  and  the  Final  Settlements. 

II.    The  Carolinas 

The  earliest  settlers  in  the  territory  of  the  Carolinas  came 
across  the  southern  border  of  Virginia.  Some  of  them  were 
non-conformists  who  desired  to  escape  from  the  intolerant 
measures  of  Berkeley.  Some  were  Quakers;  one  of  whose 
preachers,  Edmundson,  was  the  first  man  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel in  Carolina.  Others,  without  any  religious  motive,  sought 
"  more  and  better  land."  This  desire,  according  to  Professor 
Weeks,1  "  and  not  that  for  religious  liberty,  was  the  leading 
factor  in  the  settlement  of  North  Carolina." 

Governor  Berkeley  of  Virginia  had  already  assumed  to 
grant  property  rights  so  far  to  the  south  as  Cape  Fear,  but 
the  first  formal  and  legal  action  toward  colonial  institution 
in  the  territory  was  by  charter,  granted  in  1663  by  Charles  Charter. 
II.  to  Lords  Clarendon,  Albemarle,  Craven,  Berkeley  and 
Ashley,  Sir  George  Carteret,  Sir  William  Berkeley  (governor 
of  Virginia),  and  Sir  John  Colleton.2  The  charter  consti- 
tuted these  eight  men  proprietaries  of  all  the  territory  now 
included  in  the  two  Carolinas,  with  all  privileges  and  powers 

1  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X. 

2  Of  this  number  Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret,  ten  years  later, 
became  proprietaries  of  New  Jersey. 


116 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


possessed  by  "  any  Bishop  of  Durham  in  the  County  Palatine, 
or  Bishoprick,  of  Durham  in  our  Kingdom  of  England."  The 
authority  thus  conferred  was  almost  regal,  and  was  equalled 
among  colonial  charters  only  by  that  given  to  Baltimore,  as 
will  be  noted  in  our  sketch  of  Maryland.  The  title  of  "Pala- 
tine "  went  with  these  charters,  and  was  always  used  by  the 
chief  of  the  Carolina  proprietaries  until  the  surrender  of  the 
province  to  the  immediate  government  of  the  King;  but  it 
early  fell  into  disuse  by  Baltimore.1 

By  these  charters  was  given  the  right  of  "  patronage  and 

Church.  advowsons  of  all  Chappells  and  Churches  .  .  .  according  to 
the  ecclesiastical  law  of  our  Kingdom  of  England."2  We 
will  hereafter  note  the  peculiar  construction  that  Baltimore 
put  upon  this  right.  Unlike  him,  the  Carolina  proprietaries 
evidently  considered  it  as  giving  to  the  Church  of  England 
the  status  of  an  establishment  in  their  colony.  What  was 
lacking  for  that  end  in  the  charter  was  afterward  supplied 
in  the  "  Fundamental  Constitutions,"  presently  to  be  noted. 

Toleration.  At  the  same  time  the  charter  accorded  large  liberty  to 
those  "  who  cannot  conform  to  ...  the  liturgy,  forms,  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England,  or  take  and  subscribe 
the  oaths  and  articles."  To  such  persons  the  proprietaries 
"have  full  and  free  license,  liberty  and  authority,  by  such 
legal  ways  and  means  as  they  shall  think  fit,  to  give  and 
grant  .  .  .  such  indulgences  and  dispensations,  for  and  dur- 
ing such  time  and  times,  and  with  such  limitations  and 
restrictions,  as  they  shall  in  their  discretion  think  fit  and 
reasonable." 

Under  this  charter  the  proprietaries  at  once  issued  a 
"Declaration  and  Proposal,"3  inviting  emigrants  to  the 
new  colony,  declaring  among  other  things,  "  We  will  grant, 
in  as  ample  manner  as  the  undertakers  shall  desire,  freedom 
and  liberty  of  conscience  in  all  religious  and  spiritual  things, 

1  Fiske,  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,  I,  255. 

2  North  Carolina  Records,  I,  22-32. 

I,  43. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         117 

and  to  be  kept  inviolably  with  them,  we  having  power  in 
our  charter  so  to  do."  In  the  following  year  (1664)  the  pro- 
prietaries entered  into  an  "Agreement"  with  certain  "adven- 
turers," desiring  to  go  from  Barbadoes  and  elsewhere  to 
Carolina.1  In  this  agreement  they  declared:  "8.  No  per- 
son .  .  .  shall  be  any  ways  molested,  punished,  or  called  in 
question,  for  any  difference  in  opinion  or  practice  in  matters 
of  religious  concernment,  who  do  not  actually  disturb  the 
civil  peace,  .  .  .  but  all  and  every  person  and  persons  may, 
from  time  to  time  and  at  all  times,  freely  and  fully  have  and 
enjoye  his  and  their  judgments  and  contiences  in  matters  of 
religion  throughout  all  the  Province,  they  behaving  them- 
selves peaceable  and  quietly,  and  not  using  this  liberty  to 
Lycentiousnesse,  nor  to  the  Civill  Injury  or  outward  disturb- 
ance of  others ;  any  Law,  Statute  or  clause,  usage  or  custom 
of  this  realm  of  England  to  the  contrary  hereof  in  any  wise 
notwithstanding. 

"  9.  No  pretence  shall  be  made  from  the  charter  right  of 
advowsons  to  infringe  the  liberty  above  conceded  .  .  .  and 
we  grant  unto  the  General  Assembly  power  to  appoint 
ministers  and  establish  maintenance.  Giving  liberty  besides 
to  any  person  or  persons  to  keepe  and  mainteyne  w*  preachers 
or  Ministers  they  please." 

In  1665  Charles  issued  a  second  charter  in  which  the  con- 
cession of  religious  liberties  was  repeated.2  From  both  instru- 
ments and  from  the  declaration  and  agreement  it  is  evident 
that  the  foundation  of  Carolina  designed  both  to  establish 
the  Church  of  England,  and,  while  conceding  a  modified 
liberty  to  dissenters,  to  so  put  religious  control  in  the  hands  Religious 
of  the  proprietary  government  that  at  any  time,  in  their  dis-  contro1- 
cretion,  such  privilege  could  be  withdrawn.  Though  the 
phrase  "  to  be  kept  inviolably "  makes  promise  of  security, 
yet  other  portions  of  the  instruments  and  the  subsequent 
conduct  of  the  proprietary  government  make  it  clear  that 

1  North  Carolina  Eecords,  I,  80. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  102. 


118  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  authorities  had  no  intention  of  abridging  their  own  power 
in  religious  and  ecclesiastical  affairs.  Thus,  the  first  person 
appointed  as  governor,  Sir  John  Yeamans,  was  instructed  to 
observe  the  promise  of  religious  liberty,  and  also  to  use  his 
influence  to  dissuade  non-conformists  from  settling  in  the 
colony.1  This  may  be  regarded  merely  as  an  indication  of 
the  proprietaries'  desire,  never  expressed  in  any  exclusive 
prescriptions.  The  fact  was,  that  with  their  wish  to  obtain 
settlers  in  the  colony,  they  were  forced  to  content  themselves 
with  such  as  came,  the  main  drift  of  whom  were  from  sources 
outside  of  the  Church  of  England.  For  the  first  twenty  years 
the  immense  majority  of  the  immigration  was  composed  of 
dissenters.  The  Quakers  scattered  themselves  over  the  whole 
province,  but  settled  in  largest  numbers  in  the  northern  divi- 
sion, acquiring  very  considerable  political  power  and  furnish- 
ing to  the  proprietaries  and  the  High  Church  party  a  constant 
exasperation.  Joseph  Blake,  brother  of  the  great  admiral, 
Dissenters,  led  a  large  company  of  English  dissenters  to  the  settlement 
of  Charleston.  Thither,  also,  came  many  Huguenots,  who 
located  themselves  in  that  city  and  on  the  banks  of  the 
Cooper  and  Santee.2  Scotland  also  sent  many  of  her  Pres- 
byterians, fleeing  from  Claverhouse  to  find  a  refuge  in  North 
Carolina  and  become  the  fathers  of  those  sturdy  men  who, 
in  the  Mecklenberg  Declaration,  sounded  the  first  clear 
trumpet  of  American  Independence.  Baptists  also  appeared. 
Some  of  that  faith  were  in  Blake's  Company,  and  in  1684  a 
Baptist  Church  migrated  from  Massachusetts  under  the  lead 
of  their  pastor,  William  Screven.  The  Dutch  Reformed 
added  to  the  number,  two  shiploads  of  them  going  to  Caro- 
lina from  New  York,  in  resentment  of  the  course  pursued  by 
the  English  authorities  on  ecclesiastical  questions.3  These 
made  the  great  volume  of  immigration.  Clearly,  the  tide  of 
dissent  was  too  strong  and  too  valuable  for  the  proprietaries 

1  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X  (Weeks). 

2  Bancroft,  United  States,  H,  172,  181. 

8  Bacon,  American  Christianity,  p.  63.    See  also  our  sketch  of  New  York. 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         119 

to  stem  ;  and  with  too  much  power  to  permit  the  success  of 
subsequent  schemes  to  aggrandize  the  Church  of  England. 
Though  that  Church  was  legally  established  in  the  Carolinas, 
yet  it  never  laid  hold  upon  the  religious  affections  of  the 
people  at  large ;  and  only  once,  and  then  disastrously  for 
themselves,  did  the  authorities  venture  on  any  measure  of 
proscription  toward  dissenters. 

The  formal  establishment  of  the  Church  was  effected  by 
the  famous  "  Fundamental  Constitutions,"  the  most  singular  Funda 
and  fantastic  instrument  of  government  ever  devised  by  the 
human  mind.  It  essayed  to  combine  relics  of  a  dead  feudalism 
with  institutions  of  the  new  popular  power  in  a  mixture  both 
absurd  and  unserviceable.  In  practical  working  the  scheme 
proved  itself  impossible  and  in  less  than  fifteen  years  was 
formally  annulled.  The  only  permanent  impress  left  on  the 
colony  was  in  the  Church  established  and  the  laws  relating 
to  dissent.  For  this  reason,  and  also  because  of  the  unique 
terms  and  details  in  which  the  religious  sections  are  expressed, 
its  provisions  may  be  here  very  properly  recited. 

The  credit  of  framing  the  fundamental  Constitutions  has 
been  generally  given  to  the  philosopher  Locke.  If  this  Locke 
attribution  is  just,  it  may  well  serve  to  illustrate  the  fact 
that  the  deepest  philosophic  mind  may  be  at  fault,  when 
called  to  deal  with  practical  affairs  and  the  uncertain  quanti- 
ties possible  in  human  nature  and  will.  The  latest  biographer 
of  Locke 1  questions  this  usually  alleged  authorship,  and 
accounts  for  it  by  the  facts,  that  Locke  was  an  intimate  per- 
sonal friend  of  Ashley,  for  many  years  an  inmate  of  his 
lordship's  household,  and  at  the  same  time  the  secretary  of 
the  associated  proprietaries.  The  scheme  of  political  govern- 
ment, with  its  palatine,  landgraves,  barons,  and  caciques, 
Fowler  judges  must  have  been  impossible  for  Locke  to 
conceive  and  distasteful  to  him  when  suggested  by  others. 
He  concedes  that  it  is  easy  to  discern  Locke's  hand  in  the 
articles  on  religion,  which  especially  concern  us  here. 
1  Fowler,  Life  of  Locke,  p.  22  (English  Men  of  Letters). 


120 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Atheism 
excluded. 


Church  of 
England. 


Dissent 
allowed^ 


These  articles  are  eleven  in  number,  entering  into  matters 
of  detail  with  a  notable  particularity,  and,  while  extending  a 
large ,  liberty  to  certain  sorts  of  dissent,  putting  other  sorts 
under  a  sharp  ban.1  The  first  specification  excludes  atheists 
and  non-religionists :  "  95.  No  man  shall  be  permitted  to  be 
a  freeman  of  Carolina,  or  to  have  any  estate  or  habitation 
within  it,  that  doth  not  acknowledge  a  God,  and  that  God  is 
publicly  and  solemnly  to  be  worshipped."  The  next  article 
establishes  the  Church  of  England:  "96.  As  the  country 
comes  to  be  sufficiently  planted  ...  it  shall  belong  to  the 
parliament  to  take  care  for  the  building  of  Churches  and  the 
public  maintenance  of  divines,  to  be  employed  in  the  exercise 
of  religion  according  to  the  Church  of  England,  which,  being 
the  only  true  and  orthodox  and  the  natural  religion  of  all 
the  King's  dominions,  is  so  also  of  Carolina ;  and,  therefore, 
it  alone  shall  be  allowed  to  receive  public  maintenance  by 
grant  of  parliament." 

The  next  article  is  in  form  the  most  remarkable  decree  of 
toleration  on  record :  "  97.  But  since  the  natives  of  that 
place  .  .  .  are  utterly  strangers  to  Christianity,  whose  idol- 
atry, ignorance,  or  mistake  gives  us  no  reason  to  expel  or 
use  them  ill ;  and  those,  who  remove  from  other  parts  there, 
will  unavoidably  be  of  different  opinions  concerning  matters 
of  religion,  the  liberty  whereof  they  will  expect  to  have 
allowed  them,  and  it  will  not  be  reasonable  for  us  on  this 
account  to  keep  them  out :  that  civil  liberty  may  be  obtained 
amidst  diversity  of  opinions,  and  our  agreement  and  compact 
with  all  men  may  be  duly  and  faithfully  observed ;  the  viola- 
tion whereof,  upon  what  pretence  soever,  cannot  be  without 
great  offence  to  Almighty  God  and  great  scandal  to  the 
true  religion  which  we  profess  ;  and  also  that  Jews,  Heathens, 
and  other  dissenters  from  the  purity  of  the  Christian  religion 
may  not  be  scared  and  kept  at  a  distance  from  it,  but,  having 
an  opportunity  of  acquainting  themselves  with  the  truth  and 
reasonableness  of  its  doctrine,  and  the  peaceableness  and  in- 
1  South  Carolina  Statutes,  I,  63,  54. 


THE  CHUECH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         121 

offensiveness  of  its  professors,  may,  by  good  usage  and  per- 
suasion and  all  those  convincing  methods  of  gentleness  and 
meekness  suitable  to  the  rules  and  designs  of  the  gospel,  be 
won  over  to  embrace  and  unfeignedly  receive  the  truth:  — 
Therefore,  any  Seven  or  more  persons,  agreeing  in  any  reli- 
gion, shall  constitute  a  Church  or  profession,  to  which  they 
shall  give  some  name  to  distinguish  it  from  others." 

Certain  rules  for  the  formation  and  faith  of  such  dissenting  Rules  for 
Churches  are  next  imposed.  "  98.  The  terms  of  admittance 
and  communion  with  any  Church  or  profession  shall  be 
written  in  a  book,  and  therein  be  subscribed  by  all  mem- 
bers of  said  Church  or  profession,  which  book  shall  be  kept 
by  the  public  Register  of  the  Precinct  wherein  they  reside. 
99.  The  time  of  every  one's  subscription  and  admittance 
shall  be  dated  in  the  said  book  of  religious  record. 

"  100.  In  the  terms  of  communion  of  every  Church  or  pro- 
fession these  following  shall  be  there,  without  which  no 
agreement  or  assembly  of  men  upon  pretence  of  religion  shall 
be  accounted  a  Church  or  profession  within  these  rules :  — 

1.  That  there  is  a  God ; 

2.  That  God  is  publickly  to  be  worshipped ; 

3.  That  it  is  lawful  and  the  duty  of  every  man,  being  there- 

unto called  by  them  that  govern,  to  bear  witness  to 
truth;  and  that  every  Church  or  profession  shall  in 
their  terms  of  communion  set  down  the  eternal  way 
whereby  they  witness  a  truth  as  in  the  presence  of  God ; 
whether  it  be  by  laying  hands  on,  or  kissing,  the  bible, 
as  in  the  Church  of  England,  or  by  holding  up  the 
hand,  or  any  other  sensible  way. 

"  104.  Any  person  subscribing  the  terms  of  communion 
.  .  .  before  the  precinct  Register  and  any  five  members  of 
said  Church,  or  profession,  shall  be  thereby  made  a  member." 

"108.  Associations,  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever,  not 
observing  or  performing  the  above  rules,  shall  not  be  esteemed 


122  KISE  OF  EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

as  Churches,  but  unlawful  meetings,  and  be  punished  as 
other  riots." 

There  is  provision  made  that  slaves  can  be  members  of  the 
Church  or  profession,  but  shall  "  not  thereby  be  freed  from 
the  civil  dominion  of  their  masters." 

Two  sections  forbid  molestation :  • 

"106.  No  person  shall  use  any  reproachful,  reviling,  or 
abusive  language  against  any  religion  of  any  Church  or  pro- 
fession." 

"  109.  No  person  whatsoever  shall  disturb,  molest,  or 
Molestation,  persecute  another  for  his  special  opinions  in  religion  or  his 
way  of  worship." 

But  the  most  remarkable  of  all  the  requirements  is  the 

section    which    outlaws    an   irreligious    person:    "101.   No 

person    above    seventeen    years    of    age    shall    have    any 

irreiigion       benefit  or  protection  of  the  law,  or  be  capable  of  any  place 

itiawed.      Q£  pro£t  or  honorj  Wh0  is  not  a  member  of  some  Church 

or  profession." 

This  last  provision  is  altogether  unique,  having  no  parallel 
in  other  colonial  statute.  The  intent  of  it  was  to  force  an 
outwardly  religious  community,  and  the  principle  was  the 
same  as  that  which  still  operates  in  some  European  estab- 
lishments, requiring  confirmation  and  communion  for  every 
grown  youth.  But  nowhere  else  can  be  found  a  formal  law 
putting  non-communicants  outside  the  pale  of  law.  Even 
in  countries  demanding  rigid  conformity  to  a  State-Church, 
so  long  as  an  individual  did  not  profess  an  opposing  faith, 
a  position  of  indifference  was  not  counted  for  a  crime. 
Of  this  Carolina  requirement  the  specially  novel  element  is 
that,  while  a  broad  dissent  is  allowed  to  the  very  limit  of 
theism,  every  citizen  must  have  some  religion  and  be  a  com- 
municant in  some  Church,  or  be  an  outlaw. 

All  the  religious  requirements  of  the  "  Constitutions " 
make  a  notable  medley  of  stringency  and  liberty  and  may 
well  take  their  place,  along  with  the  rules  for  civil  founda- 
tion, among  the  curiosities  of  history.  As  with  the  civil 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS    123 

regulations,  these  religious  rules,  save  as  regards  the  Church 
establishment,  soon  proved  but  an  ideal  which  the  proprie- 
taries were  unable  to  realize  in  the  colony.  It  does  not  appear 
that  the  regulations  governing  dissent  were  observed  with 
any  strictness,  or  their  method  followed  in  the  organizing  of 
dissenting  Churches.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  any  irreligious 
person  was  ever  put  out  of  the  colony,  or  under  the  ban, 
because  of  his  lack  of  religion. 

In  fact,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  no  small  proportion  of  the 
people  must  have  been  without  any  definite  religion.  This 
was  specially  true  of  North  Carolina.  Though  the  Church 
was  established  at  the  beginning,  yet  more  than  twenty 
years  passed  before  its  first  clergyman  was  settled.1  The 
settlers  in  South  Carolina  were  of  a  higher  type  as  regards 
religion,  but  there  was  a  long-continued  lack  of  ministers 
and  the  conveniences  for  public  worship.  The  Quakers,  not 
depending  on  a  consecrated  ministry,  held  their  meetings 
with  some  approach  to  frequency,  but  for  most  of  the  people 
for  many  years  there  was  a  total  destitution  of  ministry  and  Destitution. 
Churches.  So  late  as  1729,  Colonel  William  Byrd  wrote  of 
Edenton,  the  then  capital  of  North  Carolina:  "I  believe 
this  is  the  only  metropolis  in  the  Christian  or  Mohammedan 
world  where  there  is  neither  Church,  Chapel,  Mosque,  Syna- 
gogue, or  any  other  place  of  worship  of  any  sect  or  religion 
whatever.  .  .  .  They  pay  no  tribute  either  to  God  or  to 
Caesar."  2  One  wonders  whether  this  destitution  of  Churches 
may  have  caused  the  peculiar  form  of  the  colonial  law  of 
1691,  relating  to  the  Sabbath.  It  makes  no  allusion,  as  do 
similar  statutes  in  other  colonies,  to  attendance  on  Church 
services,  but,  forbidding  all  secular  work,  requires  that  "  all 
and  every  person  and  persons  shall  on  every  Lord's  Day 
apply  themselves  to  the  observance  of  the  same  by  exercising 
themselves  of  piety  and  true  religion."  3 

1  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  629. 

2  Byrd  MSB.,  I,  59,  65. 

*  South  Carolina  Statutes,  II,  69. 


124  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Anglican  Before  the  end  of  the  century  a  large  number  of  people 

ton.18™"  attached  to  the  Church  of  England  emigrated  to  Carolina. 
Many  of  them  were  of  gentle  birth,  and,  with  the  sympathies 
of  the  proprietaries,  soon  founded  an  oligarchy,  grasping 
after  political  power  to  be  controlled  in  the  interest  of  the 
Church.1  Their  schemes  precipitated  an  intense  political 
strife  almost  entirely  on  religious  lines.  The  method  pur- 
sued was  such  as  to  indicate  a  digested  conspiracy  against 
the  liberties  of  the  people. 

Plot  against  Its  first  step  was  the  specious  act  of  1696  giving  "  liberty 
dissenters.  of  ^  province  to  Aliens,"  which  ran :  "  All  Christians 
.  .  .  (Papists  only  excepted)  shall  enjoy  the  full,  free,  and 
undisturbed  exercise  of  their  consciences,  so  as  to  be  in  the 
exercise  of  their  worship  according  to  the  professed  rules  of 
their  religion,  without  any  lett,  hindrance,  or  molestation  by 
any  power  either  ecclesiastical  or  civil  whatever."2  The 
purpose  of  the  act  would  seem  to  have  been  that  of  forestall- 
ing clamor  against  further  intended  steps  and  to  create  the 
impression  of  the  widest  spirit  of  toleration.  At  the  same 
time  the  act  is  silent  as  to  the  matter  of  civil  rights,  and 
thus  is  a  contradiction  of  the  promises  in  the  now  abandoned 
Fundamental  Constitutions. 

It  is  noticeable  that,  while  that  abandonment  seemed  to 
the  colonial  authorities  to  make  necessary  this  assertion  of 
religious  freedom,  it  did  not  suggest  the  reestablishment  of 
the  Church  by  formal  statute.  Rather  was  it  at  first  taken 
for  granted  that  the  principle  stated  in  the  constitutions,  that 
the  Church  of  England  was  uthe  only  true  and  orthodox 
religion  and  the  natural  religion  in  all  the  king's  dominions, 
and  so  in  Carolina,"  was  a  sound  principle.  Certainly,  the 
high-Church  party  accepted  the  establishment  as  thus  founded 
and  proposed  no  other  statutes  to  buttress  it  until  1704. 

The  first  act  of  detail  under  the  establishment,  to  settle 
the  maintenance  of  a  minister,  was  passed  in  1698.3  This 

1  Bancroft,  III,  13.  2  South  Carolina  Statutes,  II,  131. 

8  Ibid.,  II,  135 ;  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  688. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         125 

was  for  the  settlement  at  Charleston  of  Samuel  Marshall,  First 
the  first  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Carolina.  clersyman- 
Anderson  says  that  the  legislature  was  moved  to  the  action 
by  its  special  pleasure  in  Mr.  Marshall's  character  and  con- 
duct.    The  act  appropriated  to  him  and  his  successors  for- 
ever a  yearly  salary  of  X150;  and  for  his   peculiar  benefit 
directed  "  that  a  negro  man  and  woman,  and  four  cows  and 
calves  be  purchased  for  his  use   and  paid  for  out  of  the 
public  treasury." 

The  next  step  of  the  Church  party  was  perhaps  the  most 
high-handed  legislation  ever  perpetrated  in  the  colonies. 
This  was  in  the  astonishing  acts  of  1704,  establishing  the 
Church  and  disfranchising  non-conformists.1  Previously  to 
this  action,  the  contest  between  the  Church  party  and  its 
opponents  —  almost  three-fourths  of  the  population — had 
pronounced  itself  with  no  little  bitterness,  and  the  strife  had 
run  so  high  that  the  proprietaries  had  been  compelled  to  so 
far  yield  to  popular  clamor  as  to  appoint  the  Quaker  Arch-  Archdaie. 
dale,  himself  one  of  the  proprietaries,  to  the  office  of  gov- 
ernor. Archdale's  policy  was  wise.  He  organized  his  council 
in  such  proportions  that  the  high-Church  party  had  but  one- 
third  of  its  membership,  and  his  administration  was  for  the 
most  part  peaceful. 

After  composing  the  difficulties  in  the  colony  Archdaie 
returned  to  England,  and  on  his  absence  the  Church  party 
found  the  opportunity  of  accomplishing  their  designs.  By 
a  majority  of  one  in  a  small  house  the  assembly  of  1704 
passed  two  acts  which  were  a  direct  outrage  upon  the  majority 
of  the  people.  The  first  was  entitled  an  "  Act  for  the  Pro-  Dissenters 
tection  of  Government,"  and  required  that  all  members  of 
the  legislature  should  be  of  the  Church  of  England  and  should 
have  taken  the  sacrament  in  that  Church,  at  least  once  in 
the  year  past.  The  second  act  was  "for  establishing  Religious 
worship  according  to  the  Church  of  England,"  and  entered 

1  South  Carolina  Statutes,  II,  232,  236 ;  Bancroft,   United  States,  III, 
18  ;  North  Carolina  Reports,  I,  635,  638,  642,  643. 


126 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


siastical 
court. 


into  much  detail  as  to  erection  of  Churches,  support  of  minis- 
ters, glebes,  parishes,  and  the  choice  of  ministers,  vestries, 
clerks, '  and  sextons,  fixing  even  the  salaries  of  clerk  and 
sexton  at  <£10  and  £5.  To  these  matters  of  routine  the  act 
added  an  astounding  feature  in  providing  for  an  ecclesiastical 
A  lay  eccie-  court,  to  be  composed  of  twenty  laymen^  having  almost  epis- 
copal powers  of  supervision  and  direction  in  all  Church  affairs. 
They  were  made  competent  to  settle  disputes,  to  exercise 
discipline,  and  remove  ministers  "for  cause." 

In  the  next  two  years  the  assembly  enacted  :  first,  another 
law  of  establishment,  but  providing  that  nothing  in  the  act 
should  take  away  the  right  of  dissenting  ministers  to  baptize, 
marry,  and  bury;  and  second,  an  act  creating  a  parish  in  the 
French  settlement  on  the  Santee,  on  condition  that  "they 
conform  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  use  a  French  transla- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer." 1  The  spirit  of  these 
acts  was  at  the  same  time  well  illustrated  by  the  legislative 
response  to  a  petition  from  some  dissenters  living  near 
Pamphlico  River.  They  informed  the  authorities  that,  "trust- 
ing to  the  assurances  of  liberty,"  they  had  settled  in  the 
colony  and  desired  permission  to  engage  a  minister  of  their 
own  faith.  The  request  was  denied,  "  though  they  offered  with 
cheerfulness  to  be  at  the  Charge  of  maintaining  them."  2 

That  such  legislation  would  raise  a  storm  among  such  a 
people  as  that  of  Carolina  was  so  certain,  that  one  marvels  at 
the  audacity  of  the  Church  party  in  venturing  the  action. 
Doubtless,  knowing  the  attachment  of  all  the  proprietaries, 
except  Archdale,  to  the  Church  and  their  desire  for  a  full 
establishment  in  the  colony,  they  presumed  that  the  proprie- 
taries' influence  in  London  would  win  the  royal  approval, 
and  thus  the  dissenters  would  be  coerced  into  submission. 

As  to  the  people  to  be  coerced,  Commissary  Blair  of  Vir- 
ginia wrote  a  suggestive  description  in  1704 : 3  "  The  country 
is  divided  in  four  sorts :  1st,  The  Quakers,  who  are  the  most 


The  people. 


1  South  Carolina  Statutes,  II,  259,  268. 

2  North  Carolina  Reports,  I,  604. 


601, 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS         127 

* 

powerful  enemies  to  Church  government,  but  very  igno- 
rant of  what  they  profess ;  2d,  A  great  many  who  have  no 
religion,  but  would  be  Quakers  if  they  would  not  be  obliged 
to  lead  a  more  moral  life ;  3d,  A  sort  something  like  Pres- 
byterians, upheld  by  some  idle  fellows  who  have  left  employ- 
ment to  preach  and  baptize,  without  any  orders  from  any 
sect;  and  4th,  Those  who  are  zealous  for  the  interest  of 
the  Church."  Blair's  description  is  of  the  people  in  the 
northern  division,  and  he  says  that  the  Churchmen  were  by 
far  the  fewest  in  number  and  were  opposed  by  the  other  three, 
"  with  common  consent  to  prevent  anything  that  will  be 
chargeable  to  them,  as  they  think  all  Church  government 
will  be." 

Of  course,  the  Quakers  were  as  ready  in  Carolina  as  else-  Quakers, 
where  to  resist  all  imposition  of  tithes  and  all  forms  of  estab- 
lishment. Governor  Spotswood  of  Virginia  wrote  of  them  in 
1711  that  they  were  "  not  only  the  principal  fomenters  of  the 
distractions  in  Carolina,  but  made  it  their  business  to  instil 
the  like  pernicious  notions  into  the  minds  of  his  majesty's 
subjects  in  Virginia."1  To  this  settled  principle  of  the 
Quakers  must  be  added  not  only  the  resistance  of  the  sober- 
minded  dissenters  of  other  sects,  but  also  the  aversion  to 
Church  taxes  on  the  part  of  a  large  number,  who  had  no 
religion  at  all. 

These  elements  of  opposition  were  not  slow  in  making 
their  voice  heard  across  the  water.  Archdale  protested 
against  the  acts  of  1704  in  the  association  of  proprietaries,  Actsofi704 
but  a  majority  of  that  body  sustained  them.  On  this  the  annulled- 
complainants  went  higher,  and  in  a  petition,  signed  by 
Joseph  Boone  and  others,  laid  their  wrongs  before  parliament. 
The  petition  cited  the  grants  of  liberty  in  the  charter  and  the 
"  Fundamental  Constitutions,"  and  alleged  that  the  great 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  Carolina  were  dissenters.  To 
this  petition  of  the  dissenters  was  added  the  opinion  of  the 
only  Church  of  England  clergyman  in  the  colony,  Marshall 
1  North  Carolina  Reports^  I,  782  j  Bancroft,  United  States,  III,  21. 


128  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

• 

of  Charleston,  that  the  "high  Ecclesiastical  Commission 
Court  (of  the  act  of  1704)  was  destructive  of  the  very  Being 
and  Essence  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  to  be  had  in 
utmost  detestation  and  abhorrence  by  every  man  that  is  not 
an  enemy  to  our  Constitutions  in  Church  and  State." 

The  parliament  met  the  petition  with  favor  and  presented 
the  acts  of  1704  to  the  Queen  as  "  unwarranted  by  the  Char- 
ter, unreasonable,  and  an  Encouragement  to  Atheism  and 
Irreligion."  This  opinion  was  sustained  by  the  attorney- 
general  and  solicitor-general,  who  declared  the  acts  "  unrea- 
sonable, and  against  the  Charter  and  English  custom," 
whereupon  the  laws  were  voided  by  the  Queen  in  Council 
in  1706.  This  issue  was  an  overwhelming  victory  for  the 
friends  of  liberty.  The  excitement  had  been  so  great,  and 
the  disapproval  in  England  so  loudly  expressed,  that  the 
proprietary  charter  was  in  great  danger  for  a  while.  To 
save  the  charter  the  proprietaries  were  forced  to  recede  from 
their  high-Church  position;  and  to  cause  the  legislature  of 
1706  to  repeal  the  obnoxious  statutes.1  This  ended  all  effort 
to  infringe  upon  the  civil  rights  of  dissenters ;  while  another 
act  reestablished  the  Church,  without  any  invasion  of  their 
religious  liberty,  and  without  any  lay  court  of  supervision. 
Its  features  were  of  mere  details  of  organization  and  main- 
tenance, requiring  no  extended  notice  here. 

But  the  province  was  still  far  from  peace.     The  dissenters 
set  about  confirming  their  victory  by  the  effort  to  secure  a 
firm  hold  of  political   power.     This  effort  was   not   always 
attended  by  success,  but  it  was  constantly  amid  a  chorus  of 
wails  and  complaints  from  the  Church  party.     In  1708  the 
Rev.  James   Adams,  a  missionary  of  the  "  Society  for   the 
Letters  of      Propagation   of    the   Gospel    in    Foreign    Parts,"    wrote : 2 
clergy.          u  xhe   Quakers,   though    but   one    seventh   of    the   people, 
through  Archdale  control  the  government.     Their  conjunc- 
tion with  the   Presbyterians  will  bear  down  the   Church. 

1  South  Carolina  Statutes,  II,  281,  282. 

2  North  Carolina  Reports,  I,  687. 


THE  CHUKCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS    129 

Men  are  turned  out  of  office  because  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  others  put  in  because  they  are  Quaker  preachers 
and  notorious  blasphemers  of  the  Church."  In  the  same  year 
Colonel  Jennings,  president  of  the  Virginia  council,  wrote  to 
the  board  of  trade  :  "  The  proceedings  (in  Carolina)  look  liker 
the  freaks  of  Madmen  than  the  acts  of  men  of  reason." l 

A  Mr.  Urmston,  the  first  English  clergyman  settled  in 
North  Carolina  and  a  man  of  no  very  savory  reputation,  over- 
flowed with  complaints.  His  letters  were  voluminous,  and 
at  times  scornful,  bitter,  and  alarmed.2  At  different  times 
he  wrote:  "Here  are  many  Quakers  and  many  loose,  dis- 
orderly professors  of  religion,  factious,  mutinous,  and  rebel- 
lious people,  allied  to  the  Quakers  and  at  their  beck  ready  to 
oppose  either  Church  or  State."  Again  :  "  The  Assembly 
was  made  up  of  a  strange  mixture  of  men  of  various  opinions 
and  inclinations  —  a  few  Churchmen,  many  Presbyterians, 
Independents,  but  most  anything-arians,  some  out  of  prin- 
ciple, others  out  of  hopes  of  power  and  authority."  "Our 
cowardice  and  Quaking  principles  render  us  the  scorn  and 
contempt  of  all  our  neighbors."  If  the  opinion  of  Spotswood 
is  to  be  received,  the  latter  remark  of  Urmston  is  justified. 
The  Virginia  governor  was  sorely  tried  by  what  he  saw 
across  the  border,  and  feared  its  influence  on  Virginia's 
"  gentlemanly  conformity."  "  I  have  been  mightily  embar- 
rassed by  a  sett  of  Quakers,  who  broach  Doctrines  so  mon- 
strous as  their  Brethren  in  England  have  never  owned,  nor 
indeed  can  be  suffered  in  any  Government."  3 

As  in  Virginia,  the  established  Church  in  North  Carolina 
was  heavily  weighted  by  the  character  of  its  earlier  ministers,  clerical 
Urmston  was  the  only  settled  minister  until  after  1721,  and  morals- 
at  his  departure  Governor  Eden  wrote  that  there  was  not  a 
clergyman  of  the  Church  in  the  whole  colony.4   The  ministry 
of  this  man  could  not  advantage  a  Church  appealing  to  popu- 
lar favor.     He  stands  pilloried  in  the  records  of  the  society 

1  North  Carolina  Reports,  I,  688.  » Ibid.,  I,  814. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  763,  769,  885.  *  Ibid.,  II,  430. 


130  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

as,  "wicked  and  scandalous,  and  a  notorious  drunkard."1 
"  Like  priest  like  people  "  also  obtained,  and  the  rector  wrote 
of  his  own  vestry,  that  they  "  met  at  an  Ordinary,  where  rum 
was  the  chief  of  their  business.  They  were  most  of  them 
hot-headed."2  In  like  criticism  wrote  a  Rev.  Mr.  Gordon, 
a  visitor,  from  Perkimans:  "Here  are  twelve  vestrymen, 
very  ignorant,  loose  in  their  lives,  and  unconcerned  as  to 
religion."  He  says  that  their  character  had  driven  many  of 
the  people  to  the  Quakers,  and  then  attributes  all  the  trouble 
of  the  situation  to  the  Quaker  "  machinations  "  ! 3 

The  absurd  situation  of  a  Church  pretending  to  establish- 
ment is  further  illustrated  by  the  almost  total  destitution  of 
No  facilities  for  the  services  of  the  Church.     This  appears  in 

churches.  manv  notes.4  The  vestry  of  Chowan  wrote  to  the  society : 
"  We  have  a  large  parish,  one  hundred  miles  long,  with  many 
poor  at  a  great  Distance  from  each  other,  and  but  one  sorry 
Church,  which  has  never  been  finished."  The  secretary  of 
the  society  reported  in  1715,  that  there  was  but  one  clergy- 
man in  North  Carolina  and  that  those  who  were  in  South 
Carolina  had  mostly  deserted.  And  in  1717  the  wardens  and 
vestry  of  Bath  complained  that  they  had  never  had  a  minis- 
ter, that  the  missionaries  never  came  to  them,  that  the  chil- 
dren were  unbaptized,  and  that  they  were  "kept  from 
dissenting  by  the  laws."  The  condition  fully  bears  out  the 
statement  of  Rev.  Miles  Gale,  an  English  rector,  in  a  letter  to 
the  bishop  of  London :  "  I  am  informed  from  my  eldest  son  in 
North  Carolina  that  the  religion  of  that  colony  is  at  a  very 
low  ebb,  and  that  the  little  stock  carried  over  is  in  danger  to 
be  totally  lost,  without  speedy  care  of  sending  ministers.6 

Yet  there  would  appear  to  be  some  concern  for  the  re- 
ligious proprieties  on  the  part  of  magistrates,  judging  from 
various  sentences  for  ungodly  conduct.  Among  them  that 
upon  John  Hassell  is  worth  citation.6  He  was  fined,  in 
1720,  .£25  for  saying  that  he  "had  never  been  beholden  to 

i  North  Carolina  Reports,  II,  431.      «  Ibid.,  I,  769.        «  Ibid.,  I,  711. 
*  Ibid.,  II,  118,  200,  273.  6  Ibid.,  I,  867.        «  Ibid.,  II,  413. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ESTABLISHMENTS    131 

God  for  anything."  The  court  judged  the  offence  worthy 
of  punishment  because  tending  "to  the  dishonor  of  God 
Almighty  and  his  Attributes,  and  against  the  holy  written 
Profession  and  Religion,  now  allowed  and  profest  by  author- 
ity in  his  now  Majesty  of  Great  Britain's  Dominions,  and 
subverting  of  all  the  faithful  and  true  believers  and  profes- 
sors of  the  Protestant  Church  and  Religion  now  by  Law 
Established  and  Confirmed." 

All  that  remains  is  simply  to  note  that  until  the  Revo- 
lution the  care  of  the  legislature  was  frequently  directed 
toward  the  affairs  of  the  establishment,1  both  as  affecting  the 
colony  at  large  and  as  touching  individual  parishes.  In  1715 
a  new  law  of  establishment  was  enacted,  in  which  one  clause 
bears  witness  to  the  influence  of  Jacobitism.  It  required 
every  vestryman  to  make  oath,  "  I  do  declare  that  it  is  not 
lawful  on  any  pretence  whatever  to  take  up  Arms  against 
the  King,  and  that  I  will  not  apugne  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England."  The  act  also  assessed  five  shillings 
"  per  Poll  on  all  taxable  persons  "  for  support  of  the  ministry, 
and  imposed  fines  on  all  persons,  "  not  dissenters,"  refusing 
to  serve  as  wardens  and  vestrymen,  when  elected.  The  act 
of  1722  increased  the  stipend  of  country  parsons  from  ,£50  to 
£100,  and  if  this  were  not  paid  within  twenty-one  days,  the 
parson  was  authorized  to  sue  the  receiver-general.  This  was  in 
South  Carolina,  after  the  annulling  of  the  charter  in  1720,  the  Charter 
institution  of  the  royal  government,  and  the  division  of  the  and^rov- 
province.  By  the  South  Carolina  act  of  1756  the  "  Chapel  on  ince  divided, 
James  Island  is  established  as  a  Chapel  of  Ease  in  the  parish 
of  St.  Andrew,  and  the  rector  of  said  parish  is  hereby  obliged, 
enjoined,  and  required  to  preach  and  perform  divine  service 
in  said  Chapel  of  Ease,  every  fourth  Sunday."  If  he,  or  any 
other  person  enjoined  to  serve  in  any  Chapel  of  Ease,  should 
neglect  the  duty,  "  the  Public  treasurer  of  the  Province  shall 
deduct  £10  "  from  the  salary  for  every  occasion  of  neglect. 

i  North  Carolina  Reports,  II,  207 ;  VIII,  4,  45  ;  IX,  1010  ;  South  Caro- 
lina Statutes,  II,  339,  352 ;  III,  11,  174,  485,  531,  650 ;  IV,  3,  26. 


132  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  last  act  of  civil  authority  over  the  Church  in  the 
southern  division  was  so  late  as  1785,  increasing  the  powers 
of  the  vestries  in  the  parishes  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Andrew, 
and  requiring  the  vestry  of  the  latter  parish  to  repair  their 
Church  building.1  In  North  Carolina  the  last  ecclesiastical 
act  of  the  legislature  was  in  1774,  and  organized  the  parish 
of  St.  Bartholomew.  In  the  fifty  years  preceding  there  had 
been  various  similar  acts  and  others  continuing  the  statute  of 
establishment,  but  nothing  of  distinguishing  character. 

In  the  entire  province  after  1706,  while  the  legislature 
consistently  maintained  the  idea  of  a  State-Church  in  various 
acts  such  as  noted  above,  there  was  never  again  an  approach 
to  any  other  oppression  than  that  which  was  involved  in  the 
tithes.  The  two  parties  struggled  for  power  in  the  state 
with  varying  success,  the  line  of  partition  between  them 
being  largely  that  of  religious  affiliations,  yet  they  never 
again  locked  horns  on  the  religious  question.  The  dissent- 
ers in  power  respected  the  establishment,  and  the  Church- 
men respected  the  rights  of  dissent.  As  the  decades  passed 
away,  and  the  country  became  more  thickly  settled,  the 
asperities  of  the  early  contests  ceased.  The  disproportion 
between  the  establishment  and  dissenters  constantly  increased 
and  with  it  the  popular  unwillingness  to  pay  taxes  for  a 
Church  not  their  own.  This  was  specially  true  of  North 
Carolina.  In  the  southern  colony,  the  hold  of  the  Church  of 
England  was  much  stronger,  owing  to  the  facts  that  its  early 
settlers  were  of  a  more  religious  disposition,  and  that  the 
English  clergy  were  of  a  much  higher  character.  But  even 
in  South  Carolina  the  inequity  of  taxing  three-fourths  of  the 
people,  to  support  the  Church  of  the  other  fourth,  failed  not 
to  impress  the  minds  of  the  leaders.  Thus  the  province  was 
prepared  for  that  disestablishment,  which  followed  soon  upon 
the  Revolution. 

1  South  Carolina  Statutes,  IV,  703. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS 

UNDER  this  head  are  grouped  all  the  New  England  colo- 
nies, with  the  exception  of  Rhode  Island.  In  them  all  the 
Congregational  Church  was  established  by  law,  with  more  or 
less  of  proscription  of  other  forms  of  worship.  This  estab- 
lishment was  not  by  charter  or  by  imposition  of  external 
authority,  but  by  act  of  the  colonial  legislature  at  the  beginning 
of  the  colonies,  in  conformity  with  the  will  of  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  people.  Each  colony  had  a  spirit  of  its  own  in  its 
regard  for  the  established  order,  in  some  instances  sharply  con- 
trasting it  with  its  neighbors.  Theocratic  Massachusetts  and 
New  Haven  reverenced  the  order  as  the  chosen  instrument  of 
God,  with  which  a  man  could  interfere  only  to  his  peril,  and 
on  conformity  to  which  all  civil  rights  depended.  Plymouth 
and  Connecticut  loved  it  as  a  seemly  thing  and  as  conducive 
to  religious  and  social  prosperity,  but  at  the  same  time  recog- 
nized the  claims  of  charity  toward  men  of  other  minds.  Of 
this  spirit  also  was  New  Hampshire,  though  for  half  a  century 
merged  with  Massachusetts,  and  afterward  vexed  by  foolish 
royal  governors  attempting  forcible  conversion  to  the  Church 
of  England. 

I.   Plymouth 

When  the  men  of  Scrooby  fled  to  Holland  from  English 
persecution,  they  had  no  thought  of  giving  up  their  English 
citizenship.  From  1609  to  1617  they  remained  in  quiet 
enjoyment  of  Dutch  toleration.  But,  though  never  disturbed 
by  the  authorities  for  the  sake  of  religion,  they  were  unsatis- 
fied to  remain  in  a  foreign  land  and  become  merged  in  popu- 

133 


134 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


emigrate  to 
America 


Bacon. 


lation  alien  to  their  own  English  stock.  Though  driven  out 
of  England,  they  were  still  English  at  heart  and  desired  to 
live  and  to  bring  up  their  children  under  the  English  flag. 

With  this  desire  strong  within  them  they  greeted  the  news 
of  the  planting  of  Virginia  with  the  hope  that  in  the  bounds 
of  this  infant  colony  there  might  be  found  for  them  a  place, 
where  they  could  at  once  be  subjects  of  their  own  king  and 
Attempts  to  enjoy  religious  freedom.  So  moved,  in  1617,  they  sent  Car- 
ver and  Gushing  to  London  with  propositions  toward  settle- 
ment in  Virginia.  These  propositions,  while  not  evading  the 
Separatist  view  of  Church  polity,  yet  asserted  their  agree- 
ment with  the  creed  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  their  desire 
of  spiritual  communion  with  its  members.  In  civil  matters 
they  declared  their  entire  subjection  to  the  king,  with  "  obedi- 
ence in  all  things ;  active,  if  the  thing  commanded  be  not 
against  God's  word  ;  or  passive,  if  it  be."  This  first  informal 
application  to  the  Virginia  company  was  favorably  received, 
under  the  kindly  influence  of  the  secretary,  Sir  Edwin  Sandys, 
a  man  of  large  liberality  of  spirit. 

On  the  report  of  their  agents  the  Pilgrims  at  Leyden,  in 
December  of  the  same  year,  transmitted  by  the  hands  of 
Robinson  and  Brewster  their  formal  request  of  the  company 
to  be  allowed  to  embark  for  Virginia.  With  this  request 
was  coupled  a  petition  to  the  king,  which  brought  temporary 
disaster  to  their  enterprise.  The  petition  sought  a  formal 
allowance  to  them  of  liberty  in  religious  matters  in  their  con- 
templated settlement  in  America.  Strange  to  say,  James, 
whose  hatred  for  presbytery  and  addiction  to  prelacy  were 
well  known,  hesitated  as  to  the  character  of  his  reply.  Both 
the  king  and  Villiers  seem  at  first  to  have  looked  upon  the 
request  with  some  degree  of  favor.  At  all  events,  they  were 
unwilling  to  return  a  negative  without  advice.  This  advice 
they  sought  from  the  greatest  man  of  the  age,  Lord  Bacon, 
whose  greatness  was  equalled,  according  to  the  epigram,  by 
his  meanness.  His  courtier-like  sycophancy  was  abundantly 
able  to  silence  a  principle,  which  his  philosophical  intellect 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  135 

might  discern,  in  order  to  give  voice  to  sentiments  more 
pleasing  to  his  royal  master.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  so 
wise  a  man  as  Bacon  could  have  failed  to  see  that  toleration 
at  least  could  be  demanded  as  a  natural  right ;  but  he  failed 
to  express  any  such  thought  in  his  "  Letter  of  Advice  "  —  a 
letter  which  both  disappointed  the  Pilgrims  and  established 
the  administrative  policy  in  religious  matters  through  the 
colonial  era.  He  says :  "  Discipline  by  bishops  is  fittest 
for  monarchy  of  all  others.  The  tenets  of  separatists  and 
sectaries  are  full  of  schism  and  inconsistent  with  monarchy. 
The  king  will  beware  of  Anabaptists,  Brownists,  and  others 
of  their  kinds :  a  little  connivency  sets  them  on  fire.  For 
the  discipline  of  the  Church  in  those  parts  (the  colonies)  it 
will  be  necessary  that  it  agree  with  that  which  is  settled  in 
England,  else  it  will  make  a  schism  and  rent  in  Christ's  coat, 
which  must  be  seamless,  .  .  .  and  for  that  purpose  it  will  be  fit 
that  they  be  subordinate  to  some  bishop  or  bishoprick  of  this 
realm. ...  If  any  transplant  themselves  into  plantations  abroad 
who  are  known  schismatics,  outlaws,  or  criminal  persons,  they 
should  be  sent  back  upon  the  first  notice :  such  persons  are 
not  fit  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  new  colony." l  So  Bacon 
demeaned  himself  to  compose  a  variation  on  his  master's 
favorite  theme  :  "  No  Bishop,  no  King."  James  listened 
only  too  willingly  to  this  advice  and  refused  the  petition  of 
the  Pilgrims. 

But  they  were  not  discouraged  by  this  failure,  nor  disposed 
to  give  up  their  project  of  removal  to  America.     They  pres- 
ently entered  into  arrangements  with  a  number  of  London 
merchants,  as  yet  not  incorporated  into  a  chartered  company, 
who  were  to  act  as  agents  for  the  colony.     These  merchants, 
afterward  chartered  as    the  "  Plymouth  Company,"  were  to  Plymouth 
provide  means  of  transportation  and  to  attend  to  matters  of  ComPany- 
supply  and  the  sale  of  such  produce  as  the  emigrants  should 
send  to  England.     They  presumed  upon  no  steps  of  govern-    >^ 
ment,  nor  marked  out  for  the  colonists  any  lines  of  either 
1  Bacon,  Works,  VI,  438 ;  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  I,  304. 


v 


136  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

civil  or  ecclesiastical  procedure.  Under  such  purely  business 
arrangement  with  their  London  principals,  the  Pilgrims  set 
out  upon  their  voyage  to  New  England  ;  without  any  charter 
but  their  own  will,  without  any  consent  or  cognizance  of  the 
king,  free  to  decide  for  themselves  as  to  their  local  civil  and 
religious  institutions.  They  owed  nothing  to  grants  of  power 
or  to  royal  favor :  but  went  forth  in  sublime  confidence  that 
God  would  be  their  guide  and  defence. 

As  to  their  churchly  condition,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
Emigration  iithat  their  emigration  was  that  of  a  Church  already  con- 
asaChurch-  jstituted.  In  their  own  intention  that  band  of  men  and 
women,  who  filled  the  cabins  of  the  Mayflower,  were  but  the 
advance  company  of  the  Church  of  English  Separatists  at 
Leyden,  whose  remaining  brethren  were  to  follow  them  as 
soon  as  might  be  possible.  Their  beloved  pastor  Robinson, 
who  longed  for  America  and  "  died  without  the  sight," 
remained  at  Leyden  only  for  the  sake  of  that  portion  of  the 
flock  which  was  left.  So  we  do  not  read  of  any  organization 
of  a  Church  when  the  Pilgrims  arrived  at  Plymouth.  "  These 
first  inhabitants  immediately  formed  themselves  into  a  body 
politic,  but  they  did  not  embody  into  a  new  Church  state, 
looking  upon  it  as  unnecessary,  as  being  a  branch  of  the 
English  Church  at  Leyden;  and  they  expected  the  pastor 
'  and  rest  of  the  Church  to  follow  them  into  the  wilderness." 
This  is  the  language  of  J.  Cotton,  Esq.,  in  his  "  Narrative  of 
the  Plymouth  Church"  printed  in  1760. l  He  also  says  that 
the  failure  of  the  expected  balance  of  the  Church  was  due 
to  the  "opposition  of  several  of  the  merchant  adventurers 
in  England,  who,  not  liking  their  principles  or  strictness  in 
religion,  would  not  provide  shipping  and  money." 

Mayflower         The  famous  Mayflower  compact,  made  when  already  the 
Compact.       stern  coast  of  New  England  had  lifted  itself  in  wintry  garb 
before  their  sight,  was  solely  for  the  direction  of  their  civil 
affairs.     So  far  as  their  local  government  was  concerned  this 

pfrfN       U  I  ° 

compact  was  an  ordinance  of  a  pure  democracy.     By  it,  they 
1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  4  ;  108,  109. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  137 

say,  "  we  solemnly  and  mutually,  in  the  presence  of  God  and 
one  of  another,  covenant  and  combine  ourselves  together  into 
a  civil  body  politic."  With  the  general  purpose  and  practice 
under  this  compact,  the  Plymouth  company,  chartered  by  the 
king  in  the  following  year,  did  not  interfere.  Under  it  for 
the  first  score  of  years  the  governing  body  of  the  colony  was 
the  gathering  of  all  the  colonists.  This  simple  device  after- 
ward gave  way  for  convenience'  sake  to  the  general  court, 
composed  of  deputies  from  the  several  towns. 

Hutchinson,  speaking  of  the  Mayflower  compact,  says:1 
"  Some  of  the  inferior  class  among  them  muttered  that,  when 
they  should  get  ashore,  one  man  would  be  as  good  as  another, 
and  they  would  do  what  seemed  good  in  their  own  eyes. 
This  led  the  graver  sort  to  counsel  how  to  prevent  it.  One 
great  reason  of  this  covenant  seems  to  have  been  of  a  mere 
juoral-ftature,  that  they  might  remove  all  scruples  of  inflict- 
ing necessary  punishments,  even  capital  ones,  seeing  that  all 
had  voluntarily  subjected  themselves  to  them."  2 

With  the  exception  of  the  English  statutes  touching  reli- 
gious matters,  the  Plymouth  men  were  well  content  to  accept 
the  opinion  of  Lord  Chief  Justice  Holt,  that,  in  case  of  an  i 
uninhabited  country  newly  found  out  and  settled  by  English 
subjects,  all  laws  in  force  in  England  are  in  force  there.   V^ 

1  History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  II,  407,  409. 

2  This  undoubtedly  expresses  the  spirit  of  the  leaders,  who  were  men  of 
gentleness  and  in  no  instance  approached  the  severity,  which  finds  so  many 
illustrations  in  the  early  history  of  Massachusetts  and  was  not  foreign  to  the 
colonists  of  New  Haven.     Quite  otherwise,  they  exercised  great  patience  and 
hesitated  to  inflict  the  severer  penalties.     Thus  in  1630,  a  murder  having 
occurred,  they  had  doubt  as  to  their  power  to  award  death  to  the  criminal. 
This  doubt  arose,  partly  from  their  own  aversion  to  exercising  so  supreme 
power,  and  partly  from  the  restrictions  of  the  Plymouth  company  in  England. 
Their  patent  did  not  give  to  that  company  the  power  of  life  and  death,  and 
consequently  they  could  not  confer  such  power  upon  the  colonists.     In  this 
dilemma  Bradford  and  his  associates  took  counsel  with  the  recently  arrived 
Puritans  of  Massachusetts,  whose  advice,  given  by  Winthrop  after  consult- 
ing with  "the  ablest  gentlemen  there,"  was  that  the  man  ought  to  die,  and 
"the  land  to  be  purged  from  blood."    {History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  II,  413.) 


138  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

They,  as  Mr.  Hubbard  said,  were  "  willing  to  be  subject  unto 

them,  though  in  a  foreign  land,"  only  adding  thereto  "  some 

I  particular   municipal   laws  of   their   own,  suitable  to  their 

\  constitution."     "They  seem  cautiously  to  have  preserved  as 

much  of  their  natural  liberty  as  could  be  consistent  with  the 

maintenance  of  government  and  order."     (Hutchinson.) 

As  to  the  rights  of  conscience  and  worship,  they  remained 
/  true  to  the  principles,  which  in  England  gave  them  the  name 
of  Separatists l  (as  separating  from  the  establishment),  and 
which  caused  their  afflictions  and  exile.     Happily  for  them, 
they  were  not  greatly  tried  during  the  early  period  by  ques- 
tions of  dissent  from  the  religious  and  Church  order,  under 
which  by  common  consent  they  lived.      They  never  estab- 
lished that  order  by  any  civil  law,  and  what  the  magistrates 
did  in  Church  affairs  was  in  their  character  of  Church  mem- 
\   bers  and  not  in  their  civil  capacity. 

Moreover,  they  never,  after  the  example  of  the  Puritans, 

made  Church  membership  a  condition  of  citizenship.2     At 

first,  in  their  colonial  democratic  assemblies  every  man  could 

speak  his  mind  and  vote.      Afterward  it  was  ordered  that 

candidates  for  the  franchise  should   be   propounded  by  the 

deputies  to  the  general  court,  "being  such  as  were  approved 

by  the  freemen  of  the  town  where  they  live."     The  law  of 

Freeman's     1671  said  that  none  should  be  admitted  freemen  but  "such 

law<  as  were  21  years  old,  of  sober  and  peaceable  conversation, 

orthodox  in  fundamentals,  and  of  £20  ratable  estate."3 

The  purpose  of  the  Plymouth  colony  was,  indeed,  predom- 
inantly religious,  but  it  was  uniquely  confined  to  obtaining 
for  themselves  the  freedom  which  had  been  denied  at  home. 

1  Many  writers  of  the  day  use  Separatist  and  Brown  ist  as  convertible 
terms,  the  latter  from  the  name  of  the  early  leader.    But  the  Pilgrims  looked 
upon  Brownist  as  offensive,  in  view  of  some  of  Brown's  principles,  which 
they  disclaimed ;  and  specially  offensive  afterward,  when  Brown  renounced 
Separatism  and  returned  to  Episcopacy. 

2  Myles  Standish  was  not  a  member  of  the  Plymouth  Church,  though  very 
prominent  as  a  citizen. 

8  Plymouth  Colony  Laws.    Edition  1836,  p.  258. 


i 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  139 

Satisfied  with  this,  they  abstained  from  dogmatizing  and  frornxt^ierant 
all  attempts  to  force  on  others  their  own  peculiar  views.  splritt 
Their  design  did  not  look  toward  the  building  up  of  a  large 
and  populous  colony,  but  rather  to  the  preservation  of  "  a 
pure  and  distinct  congregation."    Had  not  the  colony  of  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay  settled  near  them  in  a  few  years,  it  is  probable 
that  Plymouth  would  have  seen  a  much  larger  influx  of  new- 
comers.    As  it  was,  the   population  at  Plymouth  remained 
small  and  almost  entirely  homogeneous,  while  the  great  stream  .^ 
of  immigration  was  directed  to  the  Bay.1 

Thus  the  occasions  of  discord  were  not  many  at  Plymouth, 
nor  were  there  frequent  temptations  to  the  exercise  of  sever- 
ity ;  while  there  are  several  tokens  that  the  men  of  Plymouth 
looked  with  disapproval  upon  some  of  the  severer  actions  of 
their  brethren  to  the  north.  They  granted  to  Mrs.  Hutchin- 
son,  banished  from  Massachusetts,  leave  to  settle  on  Aquid-  * 
neck  (Rhode  Island),  then  in  the  Plymouth  patent,  although 
they  did  not  approve  of  her  teachings  any  more  than  did  the 
magistrates  at  Boston.  They  were  kindly  to  Roger  Williams ;  f 
went  far  to  a  charitable  construction  of  the  motives  of  Mav- 
erick and  Childs,  and  distinctly  disapproved  of  the  cruelties 
visited  on  the  Quakers.  Indeed,  the  liberality  of  Plymouth 
was  so  offensive  to  the  rulers  of  Massachusetts,  that  at  one 
time  it  threatened  to  break  up  the  New  England  Confed- 
eracy. ''However  rigid  the  Plymouth  colonists  may  have 
been  at  their  first  separation  from  the  Church  of  England, 
they  never  discovered  that  persecuting  spirit  which  we  have  | 
seen  in  Massachusetts."  2  To  this  liberality  Bancroft  suggests 
that  their  sojourn  in  Ley  den  may  have  led  them.3  "  Their  resi- 
dence in  Holland  had  made  them  acquainted  with  various 
forms  of  Christianity;  a  wide  experience  had  emancipated 
them  from  bigotry,  and  they  were  never  betrayed  into  ex- 
cesses of  religious  persecution." 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  141. 

2  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  II,  421. 
8  History  of  United  States,  I,  322. 


140 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Religious 
legislation. 


Presby- 
terian 
Cabal. 


In  the  Colonial  Records  of  Plymouth  there  is  a  conspicuous 
absenpe  of  legislation  on  matters  of  religion.  The  general 
court  did  not  take  order  for  the  formation  of  Churches,  or 
building  of  meeting  houses,  or  the  payment  of  ministers,  or  to 
compel  attendance  on  divine  services.  In  1646  the  general 
court  resolved,  "that  something  be  done  to  mayntaine  the 
libertys  of  the  Churches,  without  intermeddling  or  wronging 
each  other,  according  to  the  statute  of  England,  that  they 
may  live  in  peace."  But  it  does  not  appear  that  anything 
further  was  done  by  the  legislature.  In  1651  Arthur  How- 
land  was  presented  by  the  grand  jury  "  for  not  frequenting 
the  public  assemblage  on  the  Lord's  Day."  But  no  trial  is 
recorded,  and  no  law  under  which  the  presentment  was  made. 

At  the  time  of  the  "  Presbyterian  Cabal "  (1643),  of  which 
account  will  be  given  in  the  story  of  Massachusetts,  and  as  a 
part  of  the  conspiracy,  a  proposition  was  made  in  the  general 
court l  "  for  a  full  and  free  toleration  of  religion  to  all  men, 
without  exception  against  Turk,  Jew,  Papist,  Socinian,  Fam- 
ilist,  or  any  other."  As  it  was  afterward  supposed  to  be 
discovered,  there  was  a  political  plot  concerned  with  this  mo- 
tion, but  the  members  of  the  Plymouth  legislature  did  not 
know  it  at  the  time,  and  were  very  favorably  disposed  to  the 
proposition.2 

That  there  was  a  strong  influence  through  general  consent 
leading  to  uniformity  and  to  evenly  distributed  support  of 
religious  services,  seems  clear,  but  there  was  no  laying  down 
of  rigid  lines  and  no  compulsion  by  the  magistrate.3  This  is 
well  illustrated  by  the  reply  of  the  Plymouth  general  court 
to  the  commissioners  of  Charles  II.  in  1665.  The  king  had 
demanded  liberty  of  religious  privileges  for  "  all  men  of  com- 


1  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  I,  438. 

2Winslow,  who  looked  upon  it  with  horror,  wrote  to  Winthrop,  "You 
would  have  admired  to  have  seen  how  sweet  this  carrion  relished  to  the  pal- 
ate of  the  most  of  them."  Men  of  a  later  day  can  easily  set  down  their  feel- 
ing to  the  credit  of  the  Pilgrims. 

8  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  625. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  141 

petent  estates,  knowledge,  civil  lives,  and  not  scandalous.'' 
To  this  the  court  replied,  "  We  would  not  deny  a  liberty  to  any, 
that  are  truly  conscientious,  although  differing  from  us,  they 
maintaining  an  able  preaching  ministry  for  carrying  on  of 
public  Sabbath  worship ;  and  withdraw  not  from  paying  their 
due  proportion  of  maintenance  to  such  ministers  as  are  orderly 
settled  in  the  places  where  they  live,  until  they  have  one  of 
thfijrown,  and  that  in  such  places  as  are  capable  of  maintain- 
ing the  worship  of  God  in  two  distinct  congregations." 1 

The  liberal  men  of  Plymouth  were  frequently  criticised  by 
them  of  Massachusetts  for  too  great  laxity  in  matters  of  the  Criticism  by 
Church.  Thus  in  1656  2  the  governor  and  magistrates  of  the 
latter  colony  addressed  to  the  commissioners  of  the  United 
Colonies  a  solemn  protest  against  the  ecclesiastical  indiffer- 
ence of  Plymouth :  "  Our  neighbor  colony  of  Plymouth, 
our  beloved  brethren,  in  a  great  part  seem  to  be  wanting  to 
themselves  in  a  due  acknowledgment  and  encouragement  to 
the  ministry  of  the  gospel."  This  complaint  they  justified  on 
the  ground  that  the  covenant  of  the  United  Colonies  called 
them  "  not  only  to  strengthen  the  hearts  and  hands  each  of 
other  in  appointing  and  maintaining  of  religion  in  its  purity, 
but  also  to  be  assistant  each  to  other,  where  any  deficiency  in 
such  respects  may  appear." 

The  commissioners,  of  course,  had  no  legislative  capacity 
and  had  to  content  themselves  with  some  resolutions  of  an 
advisory  nature  to  act  with  moral  pressure  on  the  delinquent 
colony.  One  of  their  resolutions  enlarged  on  the  necessity 
of  "an  able  orthodox  ministry  ...  to  be  duly  sought  out 
in  every  society  or  township  within  the  several  jurisdictions  " ; 
another  dwelt  upon  the  "  competent  maintenance  (as)  a  debt 
of  justice  .  .  .  from  the  whole  society  jointly  " ;  while  a  third 
left  (per  force)  the  matter  "  to  the  wisdom  of  the  general 
court  to  draw  up  such  conclusions  and  orders  as  may  attain 
the  end  desired."  Then,  as  though  it  were  an  afterthought,  the 

1  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  234. 

2  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  283. 


142  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

commissioners  resolved :  "  We  do  further  propose  to  the 
genera),  courts  that  all  Quakers,  Ranters,  and  other  notorious 
heretics  be  prohibited  coming  into  the  United  Colonies." 

In  this  last  action  was  Massachusetts'  real  objective.  She 
was  not  content  to  submit  to  Plymouth's  disapproval  of  her 
Quakers.  own  cruelty  to  the  Quakers,  and  thought  to  coerce  the  Pil- 
grims into  sympathy.  But  the  appeal  was  futile.  The  men 
of  Plymouth  took  no  very  severe  steps  toward  the  sectaries, 
and  went  on  in  their  own  way  of  charity  and  peace.1  The 
most  that  they  could  be  brought  to  do  was  to  rebuke  any 
civil  disorders.  In  John  Cotton's  Account  it  is  stated  that: 
"  The  Quakers  much  infested  the  country  between  the  years 
1650  and  1660,  and  proved  very  troublesome  and  subverted 
many.  In  the  Church  one  family  only  was  wholly  led  away. 
But  Plymouth  never  made  any  sanguinary  or  capital  laws 
against  that  sect."  2 

In  this  charitable  disposition  they  were  following  the 
counsel  of  their  beloved  pastor,  Robinson.  In  Holland  they 
unhesitatingly  communed  with  the  Dutch  and  French 
Churches,  and  also  with  the  Scotch,  under  his  guidance ; 
and  on  their  departure  for  America  he  urged  upon  them  a 
like  liberal  spirit,  saying  to  them  in  his  tender  farewell, 
"there  will  be  no  difference  between  unconformable  minis- 
ters and  you,  when  they  come  to  the  practice  of  the  ordinances 
of  the  kingdom."  3 

In  " Hypocricie  Unmasked"  a  tract  written  against  Gor- 
ton by  Edward  Winslow,  who  himself  frequently  "  exercised  " 
as  a  preacher,4  it  is  denied  that  the  Pilgrims  were  ever  un- 

1  Palfrey  (History  of  New  England,  II,  37),  without  apparent  warrant, 
states  that  Plymouth  was  more  disturbed  than  any  other  colony,  as  to  inter- 
nal politics  by  the  Quakers.     Felt  (Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II, 
168,  313)  cites  one  whipping,  a  few  fines,  and  banishments. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  3  ;  III. 

8  Young,  Chronicles  of  Pilgrim  Fathers,  pp.392,  398. 

4  Winslow  got  into  trouble  for  this  exercise,  when  on  an  embassy  to  Eng- 
land in  1635.  Archbishop  Laud  questioned  him  about  his  preaching  and 
marrying,  and  threw  him  into  the  Fleet,  where  he  was  kept  for  seventeen 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  143 

willing  that  Presbyterians  should  settle  at  Plymouth.  Some 
Presbyterians  had  written  thither  from  Scotland,  to  learn  if 
they  would  be  welcome  "  to  freely  exercise  their  Presbyterial 
government  amongst  us ;  and  it  was  answered  affirmatively, 
they  might."1 

As  further  illustrating  the  liberal  spirit  of  Plymouth 
stands  their  action  toward  Charles  Chauncy,  who  was  after-  Chauncy. 
ward  the  president  of  Harvard  College.  He  was  called  in 
1638  as  colleague  to  John  Reyner,  the  pastor  at  Plymouth, 
and  preached  there  for  three  years.  He  refused,  however, 
to  be  installed  or  remain,  because  he  was  an  immersionist. 
But  "  the  Church,  being  loth  to  lose  a  man  of  such  eminency, 
offered,  in  case  he  would  settle,  to  suffer  him  to  practice 
according  to  his  persuasion  .  .  .  provided  he  could  peaceably 
suffer  Mr.  Reyner  to  baptize  according  to  the  mode  in  gen- 
eral use."  2  This  offer  Mr.  Chauncy  did  not  accept. 

The  action  of  the  Plymouth  authorities  against  Lechford  — 
or  Lyford3  —  though  represented  by  the  sufferer  as  for  reli-  Lyford. 
gious  exclusiveness,  was  in  reality  for  misdemeanor  as  a 
citizen.  Thomas  Lyford  was  an  Episcopal  minister,  whose 
experiences  at  Plymouth  may  be  briefly  related  as  illustrat- 
ing the  spirit  of  the  Pilgrims.4  He  was  sent  over  by  the 
company  in  1623,  to  take  the  place  of  Robinson,  whom 
they  were  unwilling  to  send.  Though  such  forcible  supply  of 

weeks.  (Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts  Say,  II,  410 ;  Massachu- 
setts Historical  Collections,  IV,  3 ;  329.) 

1Winslow  mentions  three  ministers  "of  that  way,"  who  were  not  dis- 
turbed. (Young,  "  Chronicles  of  Pilgrim  Fathers,"  p.  402.)  One  of  these 
three  was  Mr.  Hubbard  of  Hingham,  who  is  spoken  of  in  Winthrop's  His- 
tory as  having  been  forbidden  to  preach  in  Boston,  because  "his  spirit  was 
averse  to  our  ecclesiastical  and  civil  government,  and  he  was  a  bold  man  and  Hubbard. 
would  speak  his  mind."  The  contrast  between  the  prevailing  spirits  of 
the  two  colonies  finds  few  more  apt  illustrations. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,   4 ;   111   (Narrative  of  John 
Cotton,  Esq.). 

8  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  442. 

4  Bradford,  History  of  Plymouth ;  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections, 
IV,  3  ;  169  et  seq. 


144  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

their  pastorate  could  not  commend  Lyford  to  the  favor  of 
Oldham.  the  colonists,  they  received  him  amicably,  provided  for  his 
support,  and  suffered  him  to  teach.  At  the  same  time  came 
John  Oldham,  one  of  a  small  number  of  emigrants,  whom  the 
company  sent  out  under  ill-defined  peculiar  relations  to  the 
body  of  settlers,  and  were  thence  called  "  particulars,"  and 
who  were  disposed  to  arrogate  to  themselves  special  dignity. 
Lyford  and  Oldham  from  the  very  beginning  of  their  stay  at 
Plymouth  entertained  sentiments  hostile  to  the  colony  and 
its  government,  and  conspired  together  to  work  "  a  reforma- 
tion both  in  Church  and  State."  To  this  end  they  wrote  to 
the  company  in  London  malicious  letters,  abusing  the  colony 
and  its  magistrates,  and  gave  voice  to  their  feelings  in  the 
hearing  of  such  of  the  colonists  as  they  hoped  to  influence. 
The  letters  were  intercepted  by  Bradford,  and  the  men  were 
soon  brought  to  trial,  the  action  being  precipitated  by  riot- 
ous conduct  on  the  part  of  Oldham.  Presuming  on  his  priv- 
ilege as  a  "  particular,"  he  refused  to  do  military  duty  and 
made  no  small  disturbance,  when  the  officers  undertook  to  com- 
pel him.  "  The  Governor,  hearing  the  tumulte,  sent  to  quiet 
him,  but  he  ramped  more  like  a  ferocious  beast  than  a  man, 
and  called  them  all  treatours  and  rebells  and  other  such  foule 
language  as  I  am  ashamed  to  remember,  but  after  he  was 
clapt  up  for  a  while  he  came  to  himself." 

On  this  the  two  men  were  arraigned,  and  the  intercepted 
letters  produced.  Bradford  upbraided  them  for  their  con- 
duct, that  they  had  been  kindly  received  and  entertained, 
but  they  had  been  ungrateful,  acting  "  like  the  Hedgehogg, 
whom  the  conny  in  a  stormy  day  in  pittie  received  into  her 
borrow,  but  would  not  be  content  to  take  part  with  her,  but 
in  the  end  with  her  sharp  pricks  forced  the  poore  conny  to 
forsake  her  own  borrow :  so  these  men  with  the  like  injustice 
indevored  to  doe  ye  same  to  those  that  entertained  them." 

Oldham  met  the  charges  with  barefaced  denials  and  hardi- 
hood, but  Lyford  "  burst  into  tears  and  confest,  and  feared  he 
was  reprobate."  Both  were  bidden  to  leave  the  colony  within 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  145 

six  months,  but  Lyford  appeared  so  penitent  and  humble  that 
he  "was  allowed  to  teach  again,"  and  some  of  the  people 
were  in  favor  of  setting  aside  the  sentence.  Presently,  how- 
ever, he  relapsed  and  was  incontinently  sent  out  of  the  colony. 
On  arrival  in  England  he  possessed  the  ears  of  the  company 
with  sundry  tales  against  the  Plymouth  people,  which,  with 
some  asperity,  they  communicated  to  Bradford  for  explana- 
tion. One  of  the  charges  was  that  "  there  was  diversitie  about 
religion  ;  "  to  which  Bradford  replied :  "  We  knowe  no  shuch 
matter,  for  here  was  never  any  controversie  or  opposition, 
either  publicke  or  private  (to  our  knowledge)."  Another 
charge  was,  "  that  the  Church  have  none  but  themselves  and 
separatists  to  live  here  " ;  to  which  the  Governor  answered : 
"  They  are  willing  and  desirous  yi  any  honest  man  may  live 
with  them,  that  will  carry  himself  peaceably,  and  seeke  the 
comon  good,  or  at  least  doe  no  harm." l 

Somewhat  later  the  company  complained  to  Bradford  for 
"  receiving  a  man  in  their  Church,  who  renounced  all,  uni- 
versall,  nationall,  and  diocessan  Churches  &c;  by  which  it 
appears  that  though  they  deney  the  name  of  Brownists,  yet 
they  practiss  the  same  &c  ;  and  therefore  they  should  sin 
against  God  in  building  up  such  a  people."  This  is  another 
of  Lyford's  insinuations  and  seems  to  have  been  adopted  by 
the  company  to  justify  their  continued  refusal  to  send  Robin- 
son to  Plymouth.  They  insist  that  he  should  submit  to  the 
"  French  discipline"  of  Churches,  and  finally  say,  "Mr.  Robin- 
son and  his  company  may  not  go  over  to  our  plantation,  unless 
he  and  they  will  reconcile  themselves  to  our  Church  by  a 
recantation  under  their  hands." 

Meanwhile  Lyford,  in  London,  presses  for  justice  and  gets 
more  than  he  wants :  for  on  examination  by  a  choice  com- 

1  Bradford's  final  comment  on  Lyford  is  characteristic :  "  Shuch  men  (hyp- 
ocritical ministers,)  pretend  much  for  poor  souls,  but  they  will  look  to 
their  wages  and  conditions  ;  if  that  be  not  to  their  content,  let  poor  souls  doe 
what  they  will,  they  will  shift  for  themselves  and  seek  poore  souls  somewhere 
els  among  richer  bodys." 
L 


146  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

mittee  he  is  proved  to  be  of  very  loose  morals,  and  is  dis- 
carded. He  did  not  return  to  Plymouth,  but  went  to  Virginia 
and  tjiere  " died  miserably. "  His  pamphlet,  " Plaine  Dealing" 
published  in  London,  1641,1  represents  that  he  was  persecuted 
at  Plymouth  as  an  Episcopalian,  but  the  pamphlet  abounds  in 
so  much  malicious  abuse  of  the  people  at  Plymouth  and  the 
Bay,  that  the  statement  is  not  worthy  of  credence.  He  tells 
Doughty.  of  a  Mr.  Doughty,  a  minister,  who,  in  the  gathering  of  a 
Church  at  Taunton,  insisted  that  all  children  of  baptized  per- 
sons, according  to  the  covenant  of  Abraham,  were  the  children 
of  Abraham,  and  so  ought  to  be  baptized.  This  was  held  to 
be  a  disturbance  on  his  part,  and  the  minister  spoke  to  the 
magistrates  to  order  him  to  be  silent,  "and  the  constable 
dragged  him  out; "  and  he  and  his  family  left  the  town.  It 
does  not  appear,  however,  that  the  treatment  of  Doughty  was 
due  to  any  religious  intolerance.  It  is  quite  possible,  to-day, 
for  disturbers  of  religious  meetings  to  draw  upon  themselves  the 
adverse  action  of  the  magistrate ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely 
that  Doughty  suffered,  not  as  a  religionist,  but  as  a  brawler. 

Nor  can  we  put  much  confidence  in  Thomas  Morton's 
account  of  Lyford's  afflictions.  In  his  "New  English  Canaan" 
he  says  that  Lyford's  banishment  was  due  to  his  refusal  to  sub- 
mit to  the  "  brethren  at  Plymouth,  who  would  have  him  re- 
nounce his  former  episcopal  ordination,  and  receive  a  new 
calling  from  them,  after  their  fantastical  invention."  Mor- 
ton's pamphlet  is  a  conscious  travesty,  full  of  ridicule  of  the 
colonists,  and  with  many  flashes  of  very  amusing  wit.2 
Thomas  Morton,  indeed,  had  his  own  score  to  settle  with  both 

Morton.  Plymouth  and  Massachusetts.  He  came  over  in  1622,  as  an 
agent  for  Gorges,  and  established  himself  at  Merry  Mount  — 
in  the  present  town  of  Quincy  —  and  there  led  so  easy  and 
hilarious  a  life  that  he  excited  the  pious  horror  of  the  Ply- 
mouth men.  Bradford  describes  him  as  "  setting  up  a  schoole 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  30 ;   Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  131 ;  Massachusetts 
Historical  Collections,  III,  3 ;  80,  96. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  147 

of  atheisme,"  as  given  to  drink  and  "  Maypole  follies."  He 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  disturbed,  however,  by  the  colo- 
nists, until  he  began  teaching  to  the  Indians  the  use  of  gun- 
powder and  furnishing  them  with  both  guns  and  rum.  This 
intensified  the  Plymouth  horror  into  alarm,  and  in  1628 
brought  Myles  Standish  to  Merry  Mount  to  abate  a  danger- 
ous nuisance.  The  settlement  was  broken  up,  and  Morton 
was  sent  to  England,  only  to  return  again  in  another  year 
and  presently  draw  down  upon  himself  the  repressive  hand 
of  the  Bay  authorities.1 

It  is  unjust  to  credit  the  actions  against  Lyford  and  Morton 
to  the  spirit  of  religious  intolerance.  Of  such  spirit  we  look 
in  vain  through  the  early  records  of  Plymouth  for  distinctly 
severe  tokens,  save  in  the  exclusion  of  Romanists  and  Jesuits 
from  the  jurisdiction.  How  largely  this  freedom  from  intol- 
erance was  due  to  the  comparative  isolation  of  Plymouth  we 
cannot  say;  nor  can  we  declare  what  the  action  of  that 
colony  might  have  been,  had  it  been  tried  by  so  frequent 
and  incisive  dissent  as  disturbed  the  peace  of  Massachusetts. 
For  the  most  part  such  disturbing  elements  did  not  go  to 
Plymouth,  where  the  peace  and  contentment,  natural  to  so 
religious  and  so  notably  homogeneous  a  society,  gave  small 
occasion  for  any  restrictive  action. 

Doubtless  the  colony  owed  much  of  this  peace  to  the  wise 
influence  of  Bradford.  Succeeding  as  governor  to  John  Carver,  Bradford, 
who  fell  a  victim  to  the  severities  of  the  first  winter,  and 
reflected  year  after  year,  he  guided  the  fortunes  of  Plymouth 
with  a  discretion,  moderation,  and  firmness,  which  reveal  him 
as  a  man  well  qualified  both  in  mind  and  character  to  be  the 
leader  of  his  fellows.  He  was  a  man  to  be  trusted,  followed, 
and  loved.  His  Letter-Book  and  Narrative  abound  in  illus- 
trations of  his  wise  vigor,  and  of  a  religious  spirit  which  was 
simple  as  a  child's.  Occasionally  he  "  drops  into  poetry,"  as 
witness  the  following  from  his  "  Poetical  Account  of  New  Eng- 
land":— 

1  Fiske,  Beginnings  of  New  England,  p.  91. 


148  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  But  that  which  did  'bove  all  the  rest  excel, 
God  in  His  word  with  us  He  here  did  dwell ; 
Well  ordered  Churches  in  each  place  there  were, 
And  a  learn'd  ministry  was  planted  here. 

Men  thought  it  happy  and  a  blessed  time 
To  see  how  sweetly  all  things  did  agree : 
Both  in  Church  and  State  there  was  an  amity ; 
Each  to  the  other  mutual  help  did  lend  ; 
And  to  God's  honor  all  their  ways  did  tend ; 
In  love  and  peace  His  truth  for  to  retain, 
And  God's  service  how  best  for  to  maintain." l 

Happy  was  that  lot  of  Plymouth,  which,  while  permitting 
to  them  opportunity  "  to  maintain  God's  service  "  in  the  way 
most  fitting  to  their  mind  and  conscience,  exposed  them  to 
so  infrequent  contact  with  differing  views.  By  reason  of 
such  lot  the  historical  incidents  illustrative  of  our  present 
theme  are  few  in  number.  In  Plymouth  abode  a  spirit  of 

,  broad  tolerance,  if  not  a  legally  defined  religious  liberty.  It 
was  again  her  good  fortune  that,  when  the  king  in  1691 

,  merged  the  colony  with  Massachusetts,  the  union  did  not 
•'  take  place  until  the  Bay  theocracy  had  become  little  more 
than  a  name  and  memory. 

II.     The  Massachusetts  Theocracy 

Of  quite  different  complexion  was  the  early  history  of 
Massachusetts.  While  in  Plymouth  peace  abounded,  in  the 
colony  on  the  Bay  discord  did  "much  more  abound." 
Hardly  had  the  colonists  housed  themselves  and  taken  the 
first  steps  toward  settling  their  modes  of  life  and  govern- 
ment, when  the  voice  of  religious  dissension  made  itself 
heard,  to  be  repressed  by  a  severely  persecuting  hand  and,  in 
one  instance,  in  the  midst  of  a  controversy  which  shook  the 
very  foundations  of  the  commonwealth. 

The  history  of  the  Bay  settlement  begins  with  the  arrival 
of  Endicott  and  his  company  in  1628.  There  were  a  few 
1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  3 ;  77. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  149 

scattered  settlers  before  his  coming:  Thomas  Walford  at 
Charlestown,  William  Blackstone  at  Shawmut,  Samuel 
Maverick  on  Noddle  Island,  and  Morton's  companions  at 
Merry  Mount.  These  were  all  Churchmen  and  looked  upon 
the  new  comers  with  small  degree  of  favor.  Blackstone  was 
a  minister  and  a  recluse,  desirous  of  a  solitary  life  and  some- 
what of  a  dissenter.  After  the  first  settlement  of  affairs  at 
the  Bay,  with  the  Congregational  Church  establishment  and 
Shawmut  occupied  and  renamed  Boston,  Blackstone  felt 
himself  crowded  out.  He  retired  from  the  scene,  complain- 
ing that  he  left  England  because  he  "  did  not  like  the  Lord 
Bishops,"  and  now  he  could  not  join  with  the  colonists  be- 
cause he  "  would  not  be  under  the  Lord  Brethren."  These 
men,  on  Endicott's  arrival,  showed  considerable  unwillingness 
to  allow  his  settlement  or  to  submit  to  his  authority.  But 
they  were  helpless  and  were  persuaded  to  peace,  from  which 
conclusion  Endicott  gave  the  name  of  "Salem"  to  the  place  Salem, 
chosen  for  this  advance  guard  of  the  new  colony. 

Like  the  Plymouth  Pilgrims,  Endicott  and  his  company 
came  in  advance  of  a  charter.  They  were  hastened  in  their 
departure  by  the  company  in  England,  which  had  already 
made  application  for  a  charter,  in  order  to  anticipate  the 
schemes  of  Gorges.  The  charter  was  granted  by  Charles  I.  charter, 
in  the  following  year,  and  conferred  upon  the  "  Governor  and 
Company  of  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England  "  a  power 
of  self-government,  which  the  colony  was  not  slow  to  use  in 
maintaining  a  practical  independence.  In  this  charter,  differ- 
ing from  all  charters  given  to  colonies  out  of  New  England, 
save  that  to  Pennsylvania,  there  was  nothing  said  about 
ecclesiastical  affairs.  It  was  not  stated  that  churches  should 
be  founded  "  according  to  the  laws  of  our  kingdom  of  Eng- 
land." Nor  was  there  anything  said  about  religious  liberty, 
and  "  for  a  twofold  reason :  the  crown  would  not  have 
granted  it,  and  it  was  not  what  the  grantees  wanted.  They 
preferred  to  keep  in  their  own  hands  the  question  as  to  how 
much,  or  how  little,  religious  liberty  they  should  claim  or 


150  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

allow." 1  The  charter  did,  indeed,  contain  a  clause  authoriz- 
ing the  colonial  magistrate  to  administer  the  oath  of  suprem- 
acy, "to  all  persons  who  should  pass  into  their  plantation.'* 
But  this  was  not  required,  being  left  to  their  discretion.  It 
was  also  prescribed  that  the  "  Lawes  and  Ordinances  (of  the 
colony)  be  not  contrarie  or  repugnant  to  the  Lawes  and  Stat- 
utes of  this  our  Realme  of  England."2 

Religious  It  is  evident  that  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts  were  jeal- 

ous for  their  own  freedom.  They  did  not  want  the  Church 
of  England  forced  on  them  by  the  king,  nor  did  they  want 
religious  liberty  for  any  others  than  themselves.  Whether 
•  this  latter  exclusiveness  already  lay  in  their  mind  when  the 
charter  was  sought  it  is  impossible  to  say,  but,  at  once  that 
their  ecclesiastical  regulations  were  formed,  they  appeared 
as  sternly  repressive  of  dissent  as  were  the  authorities  of  the 
English  Church. 

Their  attitude  toward  the  Church  of  England,  as  illus- 
trated by  the  ecclesiastical  polity  immediately  established  at 
the  Bay,  marks  a  strange  and  almost  unreasonable  change  of 
mind.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  settlement  in  Massachusetts 
the  distinction  between  the  Puritans  and  those  who  were 
afterward  called  Pilgrims  was  sharply  drawn.  The  latter 
were  Separatists  whose  conscience  led  them  to  withdraw 
from  the  national  Church,  in  protest  against  her  oppression 

1  Fiske,  Beginnings  of  New  England,  p.  96. 

2  Anderson,  in  the  History  of  the  Colonial  Church  (II,  310),  accuses  the 
Puritans  of  bad  faith  and  disloyalty  for  not  conforming  their  Church  to  these 
terms  of  the  charter.    But  this  overstrains  their  intent,  as  comparison  with 
various  other  charters  shows.     In  them  the  royal  desire  to  establish  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  colonies  is  expressed  in  specific  language  to  that 
effect,  and  not  left  to  any  general  inference  from  the  laws  obtaining  in  Eng- 
land.   For  this  reason,  as  well  as  from  the  failure  to  make  the  oath  of 
supremacy  mandatory  in  the  new  plantation,  the  colonists  were  entirely  jus- 
tified in  holding  that  the  reference  to  the  laws  and  statutes  of  England  had  in 
view  only  the  civil  regulations  which  the  colonists  might  enact.     This  cer- 
tainly was  the  opinion  of  Charles  II.,  when,  fifty  years  later,  he  wrote, 
"The  principle  and  foundation  of  the  charter  of  Massachusetts  was  the  free- 
dom of  liberty  of  conscience."     (Bancroft,  I,  343.) 


THE  PTJKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  151 

and  what  they  regarded  as  her  corruptions.  The  Puritans, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  never  put  themselves  in  such  posi- 
tion, or  withdrawn  from  the  Church  of  England.  Governor 
Hutchinson  says  of  them : l  "  While  they  remained  in  Eng- 
land they  continued  in  the  communion  of  the  Church.  With 
some  ceremonial  parts  all  were  more  or  less  dissatisfied.  The 
canons  and  rigid  execution  of  them  they  accounted  a  grievous 
burden.  The  form  of  government  in  the  Church  was  not  a 
general  subject  of  complaint,  and  they  were  very  careful  to 
distinguish  themselves  from  the  Brownists  and  other  Separa- 
tists." In  the  general,  the  Puritans  approved  the  creed  and 
polity  of  the  Church  of  England  and  professed  undying 
affection  for  her  communion,  only  desiring  to  reform  from 
within  the  Church  certain  errors  of  service  and  practice. 

These  are  the  sentiments  expressed  by  them  to  the  last  day 
of  their  lives  in  England,  and  with  the  expression  of  this 
tender  love  for  their  "Mother  Church"  they  bade  farewell  to 
English  shores,  to  seek  their  new  home  across  the  sea.  Of 
such  feeling  nothing  can  be  more  expressive  than  the  words 
of  Winthrop  and  his  companions  in  their  farewell,  written 
just  as  their  ship  was  about  to  sail :  "  Reverend  Fathers  and 
Brethren,"  it  says,  "  Howsoever  your  charitie  may  have  met 
with  discouragement  through  the  misreport  of  our  intentions 
or  the  indiscretions  of  some  amongst  us,  yet  we  desire  you 
would  be  pleased  to  take  notice  that  the  principals  and  body 
of  our  company  esteem  it  our  honour  to  call  the  Church  of 
England,  from  whence  wee  rise,  our  deare  mother,  and  cannot 
part  from  our  native  countrie,  where  she  specially  resideth, 
without  much  sadness  of  heart  and  many  tears  in  our  eyes  ; 
blessing  God  for  the  parentage  and  education,  as  members  of 
the  same  body ;  and  while  we  have  breath  we  shall  syncerely 
endeavor  the  continuance  and  abundance  of  her  welfare." 

Men  possessed  of  hostile  feelings  toward  the  Church  could 
send  no  such  tender  and  loving  message.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  suppose  that,  at  the  time  of  their  departure  from  England, 
1  History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  417. 


152  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

nothing  was  further  from  their  minds  than  that  attitude  of 
separation  from  the  Church  of  England  immediately  assumed 
on  arrival  in  America. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  whole  question  of  Church  form  was 
Endicott.  settled  for  them  by  their  forerunner,  Endicott,  and  so  settled 
that,  in  spite  of  past  affiliations  and  preferences,  their  wisest 
course  was  rather  to  acquiesce  than  to  overturn.  If  it  were 
their  purpose,  as  their  farewell  words  suggest,  to  maintain 
cordial  and  fraternal  relations  to  the  Church  of  England, 
then  Endicott  was  the  wrong  man  to  lead  their  first  band 
and  lay  the  first  course  of  the  new  commonwealth's  founda- 
tion. In  him  the  sense  of  wrong  in  the  Church  had  reached 
a  deeper  degree  of  dissent  than  in  the  most  of  the  associates ; 
while  in  character  he  was  highly  emotional,  apt  to  give  way  to 
the  strong  impulse  of  the  moment,  sometimes  in  actions  — 
like  that  of  cutting  the  cross  from  the  flag  —  which  he  soon 
found  reason  to  regret.  Withal,  he  was  very  devout,  a  man 
of  rigid  addiction  to  the  sense  of  duty,  and  of  a  courage 
which  no  danger  could  alarm.  Sent  out  by  the  company  in 
advance  as  "  a  fit  instrument  to  begin  this  wilderness  work," 
he  used  the  power  and  opportunity  thus  in  his  hand  to  so 
mould  the  new  Church  that  it  should  express  the  principles 
of  non-conformity  to  the  Church  of  England,  no  less  clearly 
than  the  Separatists  of  Scrooby,  Leyden,  and  Plymouth. 
Yet  even  in  the  mind  of  Endicott  himself  it  would  seem  that 
the  purpose  of  entire  and  hostile  separation  must  have  formed 
itself  after  he  left  English  shores,  if  we  are  to  credit  him  with 
the  sincerity  which  is  his  due,  in  the  words  of  his  farewell : 1 
"  We  will  not  say  as  the  Separatists,  '  Farewell,  Babylon  ! 
Farewell,  Rome  ! '  But  we  say,  '  Farewell,  dear  England ! 
Farewell,  the  Church  of  God  in  England  ! '  " 

It  is  but  justice  to  suppose  that  the  views  of  Endicott  and 
his  companions  underwent  some  change  during  their  long 
voyage,  filled  as  it  was  with  much  religious  counsel  and 
exercise.  With  him  came  two  ministers:  Samuel  Skelton, 
1  Young,  Chronicles  of  Pilgrim  Fathers,  p.  398. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  153 

"  a  friend  to  the  utmost  equality  of  privileges  in  Church  and 
State,"  and  Francis  Higginson,  who  had  been  deprived  of  his 
parish  at  Leicester  for  non-conformity.  Through  whatever 
motives  they  left  England,  the  arrival  of  these  men  in  their 
new  home  found  them  quite  willing  to  commit  themselves 
to  a  complete  separation  from  the  Church  of  England.  It  is 
possible  also  for  them  to  have  felt  a  practical  unwisdom  in 
making  the  order  and  discipline  of  their  Church  dependent 
on  bishops  three  thousand  miles  away :  a  dependence  which 
in  after  years  furnished  to  the  English  establishments  in 
America  most  exasperating  and  long-continued  trouble. 

Doubtless  also  the  advice  of  Bradford  had  large  influence  with 
Endicott  and  his  companions.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  Puritans  of  the  Bay  did  not,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Pil- 
grims, come  to  New  England  as  an  already  organized  Church. 
Members  of  the  Church  of  England,  they  as  individuals  associ- 
ated themselves  for  the  purpose  of  a  plantation  in  America. 
With  very  few  exceptions,  indeed,  they  were  deeply  religious 
men.  Their  aim  in  emigration  was  also  chiefly  religious.  This 
aim  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  Conclusions,  drawn  up  by  the 
elder  Winthrop  and  privately  circulated  in  England.  These 
stated  that  "  former  enterprises  had  aimed  at  profit :  the  pres- 
ent object  is  purity  of  religion ;  the  earlier  settlements  had 
been  filled  with  a  lawless  multitude ;  it  is  now  proposed  to 
form  a  peculiar  government  and  to  colonize  the  Best." 1  The 
younger  Winthrop,  on  receipt  of  the  Conclusions,  wrote  to  his 
father  signifying  his  hearty  approval  of  its  statements  and  pur- 
pose, and  his  own  readiness  to  join  the  new  enterprise :  "  For 
myself,"  he  said,  "  I  have  seen  so  much  of  the  vanity  of  the 
world,  that  I  esteem  no  more  the  diversities  of  countries  than 
of  so  many  inns,  whereof  the  traveller,  that  hath  lodged  in  the 
best  or  in  the  worst,  findeth  no  difference  when  he  cometh  to  his 
journey's  end :  and  I  shall  call  that  my  country,  where  I  may 
most  glorify  God  and  enjoy  the  presence  of  my  dearest  friends."  2 

1  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  351. 

2  Winthrop,  Life  of  Winthrop,  I,  307. 


154 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Planters' 
Plea, 


Scottow's 
Narrative. 


A  like  testimony  of  religious  aim  is  very  strongly  stated  in 
"  The  Planters'  Plea :  or  the  Grounds  of  Plantation  Exam- 
ined :  a  Manifestation  of  the  Causes  moving  such  as  have 
undertaken  a  Plantation  in  New  England"  This  is  the  title 
of  a  pamphlet  published  in  London,  1630.1  The  heading  of 
Chapter  V.  runs,  "  That  New  England  is  a  fit  country  for 
the  seating  of  a  Colonie  for  the  propagation  of  Religion." 
The  country  is  not  rich  and  so  is  better  for  the  religious 
purpose.  "  If  men  desire  people  to  degenerate  speedily,  and 
to  corrupt  their  minds  and  bodies  too,  and  besides  to  tole  in 
theeves  and  spoilers  from  abroad,  let  them  seek  a  rich  soil, 
which  brings  in  much  with  little  labor:  but  if  they  desire 
that  Piety  and  godliness  shall  prosper  accompanied  with 
sobriety,  justice,  and  love,  let  them  choose  a  Country  such 
as  this  is  —  which  may  yield  sufficiency  with  hard  labor  and 
industry." 

To  our  historical  sense  it  would  seem  that  inspiration  it- 
self could  not  have  more  clearly  outlined  one  of  the  prime 
conditions  of  New  England's  future  greatness.2 

Another  and  quaint  description  of  the  motive  of  coloniza- 
tion is  contained  in  Scottow's  "  Narrative  of  the  Planting  of 
Massachusetts"  z  It  was  published  at  Boston  in  1694,  and 
rivals  productions  of  a  hundred  years  before  in  its  extravagant 
language.  "Neither  Gold  or  Silver,  nor  French  or  Dutch 
Trade  of  Peltry  did  Oil  their  Wheels  ;  it  was  the  Propaga- 
tion of  Piety  and  Religion  to  Posterity ;  and  the  secret  Mace- 
donian Call,  COME  OVER  AND  HELP  us  —  the  setting  up 


1  Force,   Historical  Tracts,  II. 

2  In  another  part  of  the  Plea  the  author  discourses  as  to  the  proper  sort 
of  colonists  and  deprecates  the  notion  that  the  worst  characters  in  England 
were  fit  for  America.     "  It  seems  to  be  a  common  and  gross  error  that  colo- 
nies ought  to  be  Emunctories  or  Sincks  of  State,  to  drayne  away  their  filth." 
Further,  he  notes  "the  principal  scope  whereat  the  Colonie  aims;  which 
must  be  Religion  ;  whether  it  be  directed  to  the  good  of  others  for  their  Con- 
version, or  of  the  Planters  themselves,  for  their  preservation  and  continuance 
in  a  good  condition,  in  which  they  cannot  long  subsist  without  Religion." 

8  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  4 ;  287. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  155 

of  Christ's  Kingdom  among  the  Heathens.  .  .  .  Infinite 
Wisdom  and  Prudence  contrived  and  directed  this  Mysteri- 
ous Work  of  Providence:  Divine  Courage  and  Resolution 
managed  it ;  Superhumane  Sedulity  and  Diligence  attended 
it,  and  Angelical  Swiftness  and  Dispatch  finished  it.  Its 
Wheels  stirred  not  but  according  to  the  HOLY  SPIRIT'S 
motion  in  them." 

The  religious  aim  is  very  clearly  stated  in  the  company's  Company's 
instructions  to  Endicott,  April,  1629 :  "  The  propagation  of 
the  Gospel  we  do  profess  above  all  to  be  our  aim :  we  have 
been  careful  to  have  a  plentiful  provision  of  godly  ministers : 
we  trust  that,  not  only  those  of  our  own  nation  will  be  built 
up  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  also  that  the  Indians  will 
be  reduced  to  the  obedience  of  God  and  Christ."  l 

But  the  company  made  no  suggestions  as  to  the  form  which 
the  Church  should  take  in  the  colony.  They  provided  for  the 
support  of  the  ministers,  and  that  "convenient  Churches" 
should  be  built,  one-half  of  the  expense  of  which  should  be 
borne  by  the  company,  and  the  other  half  by  the  planters. 
Yet,  strangely  enough,  as  to  Church  polity  they  left  the 
colonists  free  to  choose  for  themselves.  It  was  competent 
for  the  planters  to  adopt  Independency,  Presbytery,  or 
Episcopacy,  with  or  without  dependence  on  the  Church  of 

1  Young,  Chronicles  of  Massachusetts,  p.  142.  Beyond  this  general  aim 
the  Company  go  into  some  particulars  :  "  We  appoint  that  all  ...  surcease 
their  labor  every  Saturday  at  three  of  the  clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  spend 
the  rest  of  that  day  in  catechizing  and  preparation  for  the  Sabbath,  as 
the  ministers  shall  appoint.  .  .  .  Our  earnest  desire  is  that  you  take 
special  care,  in  settling  these  families  that  the  chief  in  the  family,  at 
least  some  of  them,  be  grounded  in  religion ;  whereby  morning  and  even- 
ing family  duties  may  be  performed  duly,  and  a  watchful  eye  held  over  all 
in  each  family  by  one  or  more  in  each  family  to  be  appointed  thereto,  that 
so  disorders  may  be  prevented  and  ill  weeds  nipped  before  they  take  too 
great  a  head.  .  .  .  Otherwise  your  government  will  be  esteemed  as  a  scare- 
crow. Our  desire  is  to  use  lenity ;  but,  in  case  of  necessity,  not  to  neglect 
the  other,  knowing  that  correction  is  ordered  for  the  fool's  back."  "We  pray 
you,  make  some  good  laws  for  the  punishment  of  swearers. "  (Young,  Chroni- 
cles of  Massachusetts,  pp.  163,  167,  189.)  Thus  early  was  the  foundation 
laid  for  the  inquisitorial  methods  and  legislation  of  Massachusetts  Bay. 


156  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

England.  The  only  phrase  of  the  instructions  which  could 
imply  a  thought  of  this  matter  is  their  language  about  the 
ministers :  "  For  the  manner  of  exercising  their  ministry, 
we  leave  that  to  themselves,  hoping  they  will  make  God's 
word  the  rule  of  their  actions." l 

With  this  freedom  of  action  it  was  suggested  that  counsel 
might  well  be  sought  at  Plymouth.  Dr.  Samuel  Fuller  wrote 
from  Boston  to  Bradford  in  1630 :  "  Here  is  a  gentleman,  one 
Mr.  Cottington,  who  told  me  that  Mr.  Cotton's  advice  at 
Hampton  was,  that  they  should  take  advice  of  them  at  Plym- 
outh and  should  do  nothing  to  offend  them."2  Upon  this 
advice  Eridicott  acted,  when,  shortly  after  landing,  the  scurvy 
broke  out  in  the  company.  He  sent  to  Bradford  for  medical 
help,  and  the  issue  shows  that  by  the  same  means  he  obtained 
help  toward  a  Church  foundation.  He  wrote  to  Bradford : 3 
"  God's  people  are  marked  with  one  and  the  same  mark,  and 
sealed  with  one  and  the  same  seal,  and  have  for  the  main  one 
and  the  same  heart,  guided  by  one  and  the  same  Spirit  of 
truth,  and  where  this  is  there  can  be  no  discord  —  nay,  there 
must  needs  be  sweet  harmony :  and  the  same  request  (with 
you)  I  make  unto  the  Lord,  that  we  may  as  Christian  Breth- 
ren be  united  by  an  heavenly  and  unfeigned  love." 

To  the  application  thus  lovingly  made  Bradford  responded 
Salem  by  sending  Dr.  Fuller  to  Salem  as  a  competent  adviser  in  the 

Church.  £wo  matters  in  hand  of  healing  the  sick  and  organizing  a 
Church.  It  is  safe  to  suppose  that  this  angel  of  the  Church 
at  Plymouth  acquainted  the  Salem  brethren  with  the  distinc- 
tive principles  and  teachings  of  the  beloved  Robinson,  as 
illustrated  in  the  Church  of  the  Pilgrims.  According  to  this 
teaching  "  a  company  of  faithful  people  in  the  covenant  of 
God  is  a  Church,  though  without  any  officers;  and  this  Church 
has  an  interest  in  all  the  holy  things  of  God  within  itself,  with- 
out any  foreign  assistance."* 

1  Young,  Chronicles  of  Massachusetts,  p.  142. 

a  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  3  ;  74.  *  Ibid.,  I,  3  ;  66. 

4  Robinson  defined  the  Church  as  "  a  separation  from  the  world  into  the 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  157 

The  advice  given  by  Fuller  seemed  so  sound  that  Endicott 
wrote  to  Bradford:  "I  rejoice  that  I  am  by  him  satisfied, 
touching  your  form  of  outward  worship ; "  and  on  this  pat- 
tern he  and  the  godly  of  Salem  proceeded  to  "form  them- 
selves into  a  Church  state."  Two  fundamentals  were  at  once 
laid  down.  The  one  was  that  the  Church  of  Salem,  though 
grateful  for  the  advice  received,  should  not  "  acknowledge  any 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  the  Church  of  Plymouth."  The 
other  was  that  the  "  power  of  ordination  should  not  exist  in 
the  clergy,  but  should  depend  entirely  upon  the  free  election 
of  the  Church."  * 

Thereupon  the  people  of  Salem  proceeded  to  organize  their 
Church,  first  adopting  a  Confession  of  Faith  and  a  Covenant ; 
and  then,  after  a  day  of  humiliation,  choosing  and  ordaining 
their  pastor  and  teacher ;  the  two  clergymen  of  the  company 
having  declared  their  readiness  to  renounce  the  episcopal 
ordination  received  by  them  in  England.  Of  this  proceeding 
Mr.  Charles  Gott  wrote  to  Bradford;2  first  describing  the 
consensus  of  opinion,  that  a  minister  must  have  two  calls; 
the  inward  by  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  outward  by  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  then  recounting  the  election,  which  was  by  ballot. 
"  The  most  voice,"  he  wrote,  "  was  for  Mr.  Skelton  to  be  pas- 
tor and  Mr.  Higginson  to  be  teacher;  and  Mr.  Higginson 
with  three  or  four  men  of  the  gravest  members  of  the  Church 
laid  their  hands  on  Mr.  Skelton,  using  prayer  therewith :  this 

gospel  and  the  covenant  of  Abraham";  and  Bradford,  as  a  voluntary 
association  of  persons,  "whose  hearts  were  touched  with  heavenly  zeal  for 
His  truth,  who  shook  off  the  yoke  of  anti-Christian  bondage  and  joined  them- 
selves by  a  covenant  of  the  Lord  in  a  Church  state."  It  was  necessarily 
included  in  this  that  a  Church  should  possess  autonomy,  that,  as  Robinson 
taught,  "the  members  have  equal  power  with  the  ministers  and  are  to  join 
in  all  the  acts  of  the  Church  ;  "  that  the  Church  can  choose,  ordain,  dismiss, 
and  depose  its  own  ministers.  To  this  thorough  independency  the  Cambridge 
Platform  afterward  added  the  mild  restriction  of  Congregationalism,  that, 
*'  when  convenient,  the  neighboring  Churches  are  to  be  advised  with."  (Mor- 
ton, Memorial,  pp.  411,  412,  423;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  285.) 

1  Morton,  Memorial,  p.  440. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  3 ;  266. 


158  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

being  done,  there  was  imposition  of  hands  on  Mr.  Higgin- 
son.  .  .  .  Now  good  Sir,  I  hope  that  you  and  the  rest  of 
God's  people  (who  are  acquainted  with  the  ways  of  God) 
with  you  will  say  that  here  was  a  right  foundation  laid,  and 
that  these  two  blessed  servants  of  the  Lord  came  in  at  the 
door,  and  not  at  the  window."  Whereon  comments  Brad- 
ford in  his  History,  "  Now  came  these  people  and  quickly 
grew  into  Church  order,  and  set  themselves  roundly  to  walk 
in  all  the  ways  of  God." l 

Thus  was  constituted  the  first  Puritan  Church  in  New 

England,  approaching  very  closely  in  character  to  the  Church 

of  the  Pilgrims.      But  the  men  of  Salem  could  not  break 

away  from  all  bonds  or  concede  freedom  of  conscience  to  the 

Civil  power    individual.     "  Because  they  foresaw  this  wilderness  might  be 

religion.        looked  on  as  a  place  of  liberty,  and,  therefore,  might  in  time 

be  troubled  with  erroneous  spirits,  therefore  they  did  put  in 

one  article  into  the  confession  of  faith  on  purpose,  about  the 

duty  and  power  of  the  magistrate  in  matters  of  religion."  2 

"This,"  says  Judge  Story,  writing  on  the  settlement  of 
Salem,  "  was  their  fundamental  error,  —  the  necessity  of  a 
union  between  Church  and  State.  To  this  they  clung  as  to 
an  ark  of  safety."  3  As  we  look  at  the  matter,  over  so  long 
a  time  and  through  so  many  lessons  of  experience,  it  is  easy 
to  detect  this  error,  which  became  the  fruitful  source  of  so 
many  woes  in  the  young  commonwealth.  But  to  most  men 
of  that  time  legal  exclusion  of  error,  and  even  of  "  diversitie," 
was  a  prime  condition  of  security.  "  It  is  by  a  mutual  con- 
sent, through  a  special  overruling  Providence  —  to  seek  out 
a  place  of  cohabitation  and  consortship,  under  a  due  form  of 
government  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical."4  So  wrote  Win- 
throp  on  shipboard,  describing  the  purpose  of  the  Puritan 
emigration  in  his  "Model  of  Christian  Charity"  —  a  name 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  3 ;  67. 

2  Morton,  Memorial,  p.  98. 

8  Massachusetts  and  her  Early  History,  p.  34. 
*  Lowell  Institute  Lectures,  p.  32. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  159 

which  seems  very  much  of  a  misnomer;  for  this  expressed 
purpose,  as  illustrated  in  the  immediately  subsequent  history, 
was  quite  distinct  from  that  sufferance  of  opposing  opinion, 
which  a  true  Christian  charity  demands.  Hutchinson  ex- 
presses the  purpose  in  clearer  and  more  definite  terms: 
"  To  obtain  for  themselves  and  their  posterity  the  liberty  of 
worshipping  God  in  such  manner  as  appeared  to  them  to  be 
most  agreeable  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures." 1 

Immediately  that  this  principle,  denying  all  diversity  and 
subjecting  religious  matters  to  the  magistrate,  was  made  a 
fundamental,  the  authorities  found  occasion  to  apply  it. 
For  the  people  were  not  altogether  unanimous  in  the  action. 
There  was  some  dissent.  How  many  were  of  that  mind  we 
are  not  told,  but  the  party  had  very  respectable  leading  in 
John  and  Samuel  Browne.  These  brothers  were  among  the  The 
substantial  promoters  of  the  plantation,  entitled  to  respect  Brownes- 
and  possessed  of  influence.  Though  decidedly  Puritan,  they 
still  regarded  the  English  Church  and  liturgy  with  affection, 
and  were  not  willing  to  follow  this  abandonment  of  all  her 
service.  So  with  such  as  sympathized  in  this  feeling  they 
instituted  a  service  of  their  own,  using  the  book  of  common 
prayer  and  endeavoring  to  assert  the  continuance  of  their 
union  with  that  "  dear  mother  "  in  England. 

But  such  liberty  was  not  to  be  allowed.2  To  the  mind  of 
Endicott  any  dissent  from  the  established  order  was  a  dan- 
gerous faction,  to  be  put  down  with  a  strong  hand.  So  he 
adopted  an  instant  and  imperious  course,  and,  acting  on  his 
own  authority  alone,  caused  the  Brownes  to  be  put  on  a  ship 
and  returned  to  England.  Thus  early  in  the  history  do  we 
find  example  of  the  then  common  inability  of  men  to  under- 
stand that  liberty  was  a  good  thing  for  any  others  than  them- 

1  History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  336.     This  definition  would  be  still 
more  exact  through  omission  of  the  words  "  and  their  posterity,"  for  the 
original  planters,  ordaining  the  manner  of  worship  which  pleased  themselves, 
left  to  their  posterity  no  liberty  whatever  in  the  matter. 

2  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  103. 


160  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

selves.  Endicott  was  deeply  outraged  by  the  law  of  con- 
formity in  England,  but  he  found  no  objection  to  apply  it  in 
America.  The  sole  criterion  of  its  right  or  wrong  was  in 
the  question  as  to  who  should  suffer  by  it.  When  the 
power  lay  in  his  own  hand  he  had  no  objection  to  range 
himself  with  the  hated  Laud. 

The  Brownes,  thus  summarily  banished  from  New  Eng- 
land, took  home  with  them  a  deep  sense  of  wrong,  to  which 
on  arrival  they  gave  voice  in  complaint.  But,  while  they 
succeeded  in  creating  much  unfavorable  comment  about  the 
new  settlers,  they  did  not  obtain  from  the  company  a  redress 
of  their  wrongs.  The  company,  indeed,  while  avoiding 
specific  reference  to  their  case,  if  indeed  it  had  by  that 
time  reached  them,  yet  in  their  Instructions  of  1629  already 
quoted,  use  language  which  goes  far  to  justify  Endicott's 
action.1  "  If  fair  means  do  not  avail  (against  disorderly  per- 
sons) we  pray  you  to  deal  as  in  your  discretions  you  shall 
think  fittest."  They  apologize  for  sending  over  Ralph 
Smith  (who  afterward  went  to  Plymouth),  who,  they  say, 
desired  and  obtained  passage  "before  we  knew  of  his  dif- 
ference in  judgment  in  some  things  from  our  ministers." 
Again,  "  It  is  often  found  that  some  busy  persons,  led  more 
by  their  will  than  by  any  good  warrant  out  of  God's  word, 
take  opportunity  by  moving  needless  questions,  to  stir  up 
strife  .  .  .  from  which  small  beginnings  great  mischiefs  have 
followed:  we  pray  you,  if  any  such  disputes  shall  happen 
among  you,  that  you  suppress  them." 

One  curious  sequent  to  this  affair  of  the  Brownes  is  pre- 
served in  a  letter  from  Dudley  to  the  Countess  of  Lincoln,2 
written  in  December  of  1630.  He  desired  to  defend  the  settlers 
at  the  Bay  from  the  charge  of  the  Brownes  that  they  "  were 
Brownists  in  religion  and  ill  affected  to  our  State  at  home  ;  " 
and  says,  "  I  know  no  one  person,  who  came  over  with  us, 
the  last  year,  to  be  altered  in  judgment  or  affection,  either 

1  Chronicles  of  Massachusetts,  pp.  150,  151,  160. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  331. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  161 

in  ecclesiastical  or  civil  respects."  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
how  Dudley  could  have  so  written  without  a  conscious  per- 
version of  the  truth.  There  is  documentary  proof  that, 
either  these  men  grossly  dissembled  in  their  tender  farewell 
to  England  and  her  Church,  or  else  were  radically  "  altered 
in  judgment  (and)  affection  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,"  on  their 
arrival  in  the  plantation.  As  to  the  term  "  Brownists,"  it  is 
a  dispute  about  a  word,  which  was  offensive  to  the  Pilgrims 
themselves.  But  it  is  clear  that,  if  the  Pilgrims  were  Brown- 
ists, such  also  had  the  Puritans  become  in  Massachusetts. 
They  were  Separatists  from  the  Church  of  England  as  posi- 
tively as  the  men  of  Scrooby,  and  differed  only  from  the  Pil- 
grims in  that,  having  now  the  power,  they  merged  Church  and 
State  together  and  suffered  no  dissent  from  their  own  opin- 
ions in  matters  of  religious  worship. 

A  more  pleasing  product  of  the  time  is  preserved  in 
Higginson's1  "NEW  ENGLAND'S  PLANTATION,  or,  a  Short 
and  True  Description  of  the  Commodities  and  Discommodities 
of  the  Country.  Written  by  a  rev.  Divine  now  there  resident. 
Printed,  London,  1630." 
This  is  a  pamphlet  and  concludes : 

"  But  that  which  is  our  greatest  comfort  and  meanes  of 
defence  above  all  others,  is  that  we  have  here  the  true  Religion 
and  holy  Ordinances  of  Almighty  God  taught  amongst  us. 

Thanks  be  to  God !     We  have  plentie  of  Preaching  and  diligent 

Catechizing  with  strict  and  careful  exercise  and  good 

and  commendable  orders,  to  bring  our  People  into 

a  Christian  conversation,  with  whom  we  have 

to  do  withal.     And  thus  we  doubt  not 

but  God  will  be  with  us,  and,  if 

God  be  with  us,  who  can 

be  against  us  ?  " 

Early  in  1630  the  larger  company  of  Puritans,  for  whom 
Endicott  had  prepared  the  way,  disembarked  in  Massachusetts. 
They  brought  with  them  the  charter  which  enabled  them  to 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  I, 


162  EISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBEKTY 

mould  and  establish  a  government  of  their  own,  without 
reference  to  a  company  in  London  or  to  king  and  par- 
liament. So  early  was  laid  the  foundation  of  American 
Independence. 

Prominent  in  this  company  of  seven  hundred  were  John 
Winthrop,  Thomas  Dudley,  and  Sir  Richard  Saltonstall,  the 
last  of  whom  —  unhappily  for  the  colony,  as  we  may  think, 
Winthrop.  because  of  his  kind  and  liberal  spirit  —  returned  to  England 
after  a  short  sojourn  in  Massachusetts.  Of  these  three  Win- 
throp was  easily  the  chief,  a  man  who  has  had  few  equals  in  the 
history  of  America.  A  contemporary,1  in  language  of  enthu- 
siasm, describes  him  as  having  "  a  more  than  ordinary  measure 
of  those  Qualities  which  adorn  an  officer  of  human  Society : 
His  Justice  was  impartial ;  His  Wisdom  excellently  tempered 
Things  according  to  the  Art  of  Governing:  His  Courage 
made  Him  dare  to  do  right ;  All  which  Vertues  he  rendered 
the  more  illustrious  by  emblazoning  them  with  the  constant 
Liberality  and  Hospitality  of  a  Gentleman.  This  made  him 
the  Terror  of  the  Wicked,  the  Delight  of  the  Sober,  and  the 
Hope  of  those  who  had  any  hopeful  Design  in  Hand  for  the 
Good  of  the  Nation  and  the  Interests  of  Religion.  Accordingly, 
when  the  noble  Design  of  carrying  a  Colony  of  chosen  People 
into  an  American  Wilderness  was  by  some  eminent  persons 
undertaken,  this  Eminent  Person  was  by  the  Consent  of  all 
chosen  for  the  Moses  who  must  be  the  Leader  of  so  Great  an 
Undertaking."  In  far  simpler  phrase  Dr.  Fuller,  who  was  at 
the  Bay  when  Winthrop  arrived,  wrote  to  Bradford,  "  The 
Governour  is  a  godly,  wise,  and  humble  gentleman,  and  very 
discreet  and  of  a  very  fine  temper."2 

Winthrop  was  in  his  forty-fourth  year,  in  the  full  vigor 
of  life  and  full  maturity  of  a  character,  which  all  the  years 
before  had  deepened,  broadened,  and  sweetened.  A  devoted 
son  of  the  Church  of  England,  he  never  associated  himself 
with  dissenters  until  his  coming  to  this  country,  but  at  the 

1  Prince,  Annals,  II,  11. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  3 ;  74, 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  163 

same  time  was  markedly  Puritan  in  regard  to  existing  errors. 
His  diary  reveals  a  nature  remarkably  sensitive  to  religious 
influence.  While  but  a  lad  he  wrote  in  it : 1  "  I  desire  to  make 
it  one  of  my  chiefe  petitions  to  have  that  grace  to  be  poore  in 
spirit :  I  will  ever  walk  humbly  before  my  God,  and  meekly, 
mildly,  and  gently  towards  all  men ;  so  shall  have  peace.  ...  I 
doe  resolve  first  to  give  myselfe,  my  life,  my  witt,  rny  healthe, 
my  wealthe  to  the  service  of  my  God  and  Saviour,  who  by 
givinge  himselfe  for  me  &  to  me  deserves  whatsoever  I  am 
or  can  be,  to  be  at  his  Commandement  and  for  his  glory e." 
With  this  as  a  keynote  to  his  life,  he  was  making  continual 
advances  into  the  realms  of  spiritual  experience.  Of  such 
the  diary  abounds  in  tokens,  displaying  faith  and  love  in  con- 
stant and  increasing  exercise ;  while  in  no  line  appears,  after 
the  fashion  of  religionists  of  his  day,  any  censorious  judgment 
of  those  who  differed  from  him.  As  a  man  of  affairs,  both  in 
business  and  public  office,  he  had  given  evidence  of  marked 
judgment  and  ability,  so  that  "  both  in  character  and  capacity 
he  was  one  to  inspire  peculiar  confidence." 

Because  of  such  character  he  was  solicited  by  the  company 
in  England,  himself  not  one  of  the  original  members,  to  join 
their  adventure  not  only,  but  to  accept  the  governorship  in 
America.  This  he  took  under  advisement,  and  wrote,  May, 
1629  :  "My  deare  wife,  I  am  veryly  persuaded  God  will  bringe 
some  heavy  e  Affliction  upon  this  lande,  and  that  speedy  lye. 
...  If  the  Lord  seeth  it  will  be  good  for  us,  He  will  pro- 
vide a  shelter  and  a  hidinge  place  for  us  &  others,  as  a  Zoar 
for  Lot."  2  Then  he  proceeds,  after  a  conscientious  manner 
of  consideration  peculiar  to  himself,  to  set  down  "  Reasons 
for  the  Plantation  in  New  England " ; 3  and  among  them 
these :  "  What  can  be  better  worke  and  more  honorable  and 
worthy  of  a  Christian  than  to  helpe  raise  and  supporte  a  par- 
ticular Church,  while  it  is  in  its  Infancy.  It  appears  to  be  a 
worke  of  God  for  the  good  of  his  Church,  in  that  he  hath  dis- 
posed the  heartes  of  soe  many  of  his  wise  and  faithful  servants, 

i  Life  of  Winthrop,  I,  72.  2  Ibid.,  I,  296.  *  Ibid.,  I,  309. 


164  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

both  ministers  and  others,  not  only  to  approve,  but  to  interest 
themselves  in  it." 

With  such  thought  in  his  mind,  it  was  urged  upon  him  by 
his  associates  that  he  must  both  go  and  assume  command  : 
and  presently  he  set  down  "  Particular  Considerations  in  the 
case  of  John  Winthrop" 1  writing  of  himself  in  the  third  per- 
son :  "  1.  It  is  come  to  that  issue  as  (in  all  probability)  the 
welfare  of  the  Plantation  dependes  upon  his  goeinge,  for 
divers  of  the  Chiefe  Undertakers  (upon  whom  the  rest 
depends)  will  not  go  without  him.  2.  He  acknowledges  a 
satisfactory  callinge.  3.  ...  If  he  should  refuse  this  oppor- 
tunity, the  talent  which  God  hath  bestowed  upon  him  for 
publicke  service  were  like  to  be  buried." 

This  is  an  interesting  process  through  which  the  strong, 
devout,  and  loving  man  came  to  the  conviction  that  the  call 
to  him  from  God  was  clear.  It  accounts  for  much  in  his  after  life 
of  devotion  and  patience. 

We  are  not,  then,  surprised  to  see  him  on  the  Arbella  west- 
ward bound,  and  to  hear  him  discourse  to  his  companions  in 
words  of  rare  eloquence  and  tenderness  : 2  "  Thus  stands  the 
case  between  God  and  us.  We  are  entered  into  a  covenant 
with  Him  for  this  work.  We  have  taken  out  a  commission. 
.  .  .  The  only  way  to  avoid  shipwreck,  is  to  follow  the 
counsel  of  Micah,  '  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  before  GrodS  For  this  end  we  must  be  knit  together 
in  this  work  as  one  man.  .  .  .  We  must  hold  a  familiar 
commerce  together  in  all  meekness,  gentleness,  patience,  and 
liberality.  We  must  delight  in  each  other ;  make  other's 
condition  our  own;  rejoice  together,  mourn  together,  labor 
and  suffer  together,  always  having  before  our  eyes  our  com- 
mission and  community  in  this  work,  as  members  of  the  same 
body." 

There  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  after  story  that  Win- 
throp faithfully  exhibited  in  his  own  life  the  principles  thus 
urged  upon  his  brethren.  He  was  far  from  sympathizing  in 
1  Life  of  Winthrop,  I,  327.  2  Ibid.,  II,  18. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  165 

the  intolerance  of  his  companions  and  joined  in  its  decrees, 
when  so  compelled,  under  the  protest  of  his  heart.  During 
the  nineteen  years  of  his  life  in  New  England  he  was  twelve 
times  chosen  governor,  and  one  of  the  two  charges  brought 
against  his  administration  was,  that  he  "had  dealt  too  remissly 
in  point  of  justice  in  one  or  two  passages  .  .  .  and  failed  in 
over  much  lenity."  l 

This  charge  was  brought  before  the  deputies  by  Dudley, 
to  whom  Winthrop  replied  that,  "  in  the  infancy  of  planta- 
tions justice  should  be  administered  with  more  lenity  than  in 
a  settled  state."  The  leading  magistrates  and  ministers  differed 
from  him,  and  Winthrop  professed  himself  convinced.2 

They  were  a  hard-headed  and  determined  set  of  men,  with 
whom  Winthrop  had  to  deal,  unwilling  to  submit  to  anything 
which  looked  like  dictation,  even  from  the  all  powerful  minis- 
ters. Of  this  two  notable  expressions  are  found  in  respect  to 
Winthrop's  occupation  of  office «  In  1634,  Winthrop  being 
governor  at  the  time,  John  Cotton  preached  the  election  ser- 
mon and  argued  against  rotation  in  office,  whereupon  the 
deputies  at  once  put  Dudley  in  Winthrop's  chair.  Again, 
in  1643,  Winthrop  being  governor  again,  Ezekiel  Rogers 
preached  the  election  sermon  and  argued  against  the  reelec- 
tion of  an  incumbent,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  tend 

1  Life  of  Winthrop,  II,  136. 

2  Winthrop  in  his  journal  gives  an  amusing  account  of  the  opening  of  this 
case  ;  that  he  challenged  his  critic  to  show  wherein  he  had  failed,  ' '  and  speak- 
ing this  rather  apprehensively,  the  deputy  (Dudley)  began  to  be  in  a  passion 
and  told  the  governor  that,  if  he  were  so  roundjQie  would  be  round  too.    The 
governor  bade  him  be  round,  if  he  would.     So* the  deputy  rose  up  in  great 
fury  and  passion,  and  the  governor  grew  very  hot  also,  so  as  they  both 
fell  into  bitterness."     (Adams,   Three  Episodes  in  Massachusetts  History, 
I,  377.) 

There  is  a  fine  touch  illustrative  of  Winthrop's  character  in  another  tilt 
with  Dudley,  who  had  written  to  him  an  angry  letter.  Winthrop  read  the 
letter  and  returned  it  to  the  bearer  saying,  "  I  am  not  willing  to  keep  such 
an  occasion  of  provocation  by  me."  This  was  repeated  to  Dudley  and  he,  in 
language  as  fine,  but  more  unusual  with  him,  sent  reply,  "Your  overcoming 
yourself  has  overcome  me."  (Winthrop's  Life,  II,  102.) 


166  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

toward  the  creation  of  a  life  office.  To  this  the  deputies 
responded  by  immediately  reelecting  Winthrop ! l 

Another  incident  may  well  be  noted,  for  the  sake  of  the 
utterance  which  it  brought  from  Winthrop's  lips.  In  1643 
he  was  accused  of  having  exceeded  his  authority  in  the  mat- 
ter of  a  trumpery  dispute  at  Hingham,  as  to  who  should  be 
captain  of  a  militia  company.  Solemn  impeachment  of  the 
governor  was  based  thereon,  and  Winthrop,  refusing  to  sit 
among  the  magistrates  until  he  was  acquitted,  made  his 
own  defence,  with  the  result  of  a  most  honorable  dismissal 
of  the  charge.  In  the  course  of  his  speech  he  phrased  as 
fine  a  definition  of  Civil  Liberty  as  ever  has  been  made  : 
Liberty.  "  This  liberty  is  the  proper  end  and  object  of  authority,  and 
cannot  subsist  without  it ;  and  it  is  a  liberty  to  that  only 
which  is  good,  just,  and  honest.  .  .  .  This  liberty  you  are  to 
stand  for  with  the  hazard  (not  only  of  your  goods,  but)  of 
your  lives,  if  need  be.  ...  This  liberty  is  maintained  and 
exercised  in  a  way  of  subjection  to  authority ;  it  is  the  same 
kind  of  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free."  2 

How  much  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Bay  went  against  the 
grain  with  Winthrop  is  suggested  by  his  refusal  to  sign  an 
order  for  banishment  of  "  a  heretic."  This  was  brought  to 
him  by  Dudley,  in  Winthrop's  last  illness.  He  declined, 
saying,  "  I  have  done  too  much  of  that  work  already."  How 
he  was  regarded  by  the  people,  among  whom  he  lived  and 
whom  he  served,  is  well  shown  in  Cotton's  sermon  on  his 
death :  "  A  governor  who  has  been  unto  us  a  brother ;  not 
usurping  authority  over  the  Church;  often  speaking  his 
advice  and  often  contradicted,  even  by  young  men  and  some 
of  low  degree ;  yet  not  replying,  but  offering  satisfaction  also 
when  any  supposed  offences  have  arisen :  a  governor  who  has 
been  unto  us  a  mother,  parent-like  distributing  his  goods  to 
brethren  and  neighbors,  and  gently  bearing  our  infirmities 
without  taking  notice  of  them"  * 

1  Winthrotfs  Life,  II,  305.  »  Ibid.,  II,  393. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  330  ;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  1, 358. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  167 

To  this  judgment  of  contemporaries  may  be  fitly  added 
that  of  posterity.  Thus  writes  Doyle :  "  Every  page  in  the 
early  history  of  New  England  bears  witness  to  the  patience, 
the  firmness,  the  far-seeing  wisdom  of  Winthrop.  But  to 
estimate  these  qualities  as  they  deserve,  we  must  not  forget 
what  the  men  were  with  whom,  and  in  some  measure  by 
whom,  he  worked.  To  guard  the  Commonwealth  against  the 
attacks  of  courtiers,  churchmen,  and  speculators  was  no  small 
task.  But  it  was  an  even  greater  achievement  to  keep  im- 
practicable fanatics,  like  Dudley  and  Endicott,  within  the 
bounds  of  reason,  and  to  use  for  the  benefit  of  the  state  those 
headstrong  passions  which  at  every  turn  threatened  to  rend 
it  asunder."1  The  attentive  student  of  Winthrop  and  his 
time  can  hardly  fail  of  assent  to  the  calm  encomium  of 
Young :  "  In  his  magnanimity,  disinterestedness,  and  mod- 
eration; in  his  mingled  firmness  of  principle  and  mildness 
of  temper  ;  in  his  harmonious  character,  consistent  life,  and 
well-balanced  mind,  the  Father  of  Massachusetts  reminds  us 
of  the  great  Father  of  his  Country,  and  is  the  only  man  in 
our  history  worthy  to  stand  as  a  parallel  to  Washington."  2 

There  is  no  need  of  apology  for  so  long  excursion  in  de- 
scription of  Winthrop,  for  it  is  well  to  remind  ourselves  of  a 
somewhat  forgotten  greatness.  Nor  would  the  picture  be 
complete  without  some  notes  of  his  close  associate,  Dudley.  Dudley. 
In  nearly  all  respects  where  Winthrop  was  broad,  patient, 
wise,  and  loving,  Dudley  was  his  opposite.  Irritable,  intol- 
erant, narrow-minded,  and  censorious  toward  all  who  differed 
from  him,  Dudley  stands  in  the  history  as  a  constant  foil 
by  which  the  nobler  qualities  of  Winthrop  appear  the  more 
illustrious.  Jealous  of  Winthrop's  position  and  influence 
and  impatient  of  his  milder  spirit,  he  was  ever  on  the  watch 
to  discover  faults  where  they  did  not  exist,  and  to  impede 
any  efforts  of  Winthrop's  liberal  spirit.  Human  kindness 

1  The  English  in  America  —  Puritan  Colonies,  I,  165. 

2  Chronicles  of  Massachusetts,  p.  105.    (Published  in  1846.)      Weeden, 
Social  and  Economic  History  of  New  England,  p.  120. 


168  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

was  left  out  of  his  nature,  and  charity  failed  to  express  her- 
self in  his  religious  character.  He  was  equal  to  approaching 
the  death-bed  of  his  Chief  to  solicit  complicity  in  an  act  of 
spiritual  tyranny.  In  his  pocket,  after  his  own  death,  was 
found  the  famous  quatrain,  supposed  to  be  his  own  compo- 
sition :  — 

«  Let  men  of  God  in  Courts  and  Churches  watch 

O'er  such  as  do  a  Toleration  hatch ; 

Lest  that  ill  egg  bring  forth  a  cockatrice, 

To  poison  all  with  heresy  and  vice." 

It  is  impossible  for  men  of  our  day  to  find  anything  lovable 
in  the  character  of  Dudley,  though  we  cannot  fail  to  respect 
in  him  a  conscientious  tenacity  of  what  he  regarded  as  duty, 
and  a  courage  insensible  of  fear.  Winthrop  describes  him 
as  "  a  man  of  approved  wisdom  and  godliness,  and  of  much 
good  service  to  the  country." 

Such,  then,  were  the  two  leading  spirits  in  that  company, 
which  in  the  spring  of  1630  landed  at  Salem  to  reenforce 
the  band  of  Endicott ;  and  with  their  charter  in  their  hands 
to  found  an  independent,  self-governing  commonwealth.  As 
before  noted,  in  one  respect,  and  that  which  specially  concerns 
this  narrative,  they  found  the  work  already  done  and  await- 
ing their  acceptance.  The  first  Church  of  Massachusetts  had 
been  organized,  and  with  it  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the 
new  state  established. 

To  this  establishment  the  new  comers  not  only  seem  to 
have  made  no  objection,  but  rather  by  immediate  concurrence 
signified  their  hearty  approval.1  Though  not  patterned  after 
any  prearranged  plan  and  instructions  of  their  own,  they 
recognized  in  Endicott's  work  a  form  of  united  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  government  which  they  were  glad  to  adopt. 
Confessedly,  having  left  England  for  the  sake  of  religion, 
what  better  scheme  could  be  devised  to  effect  their 
desire  ? 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  116  j  Winthrop,  Journal,  I,  13. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  169 

We  owe  to  John  Cotton  the  explicit  terms  in  which  that 
governing  desire  is  acknowledged.  At  the  request  of  the 
General  Court  he  drew  up  an  "  Abstract  of  Laws  "  for  the 
guidance  of  magistrates,  which  he  patterned  after  "  the  laws 
of  judgement  delivered  from  God  to  Moses."  l  This  abstract 
he  accompanied  with  an  argument  of  advice,  "  that  Theocracy , 
i.e.  God's  government,  might  be  established  as  the  best  form 
of  government,  wherein  the  people  that  choose  rulers  are 
God's  people  in  covenant  with  Him,  that  is,  members  of  the 
Churches."  Afterward  Cotton,  writing  to  Lord  Say  and 
Sele,  describes  the  Government  of  Massachusetts  as  "a 
Theocracy  in  both,  the  best  form  of  government  in  the 
Commonwealth,  as  well  as  in  the  Church."  2 

In  so  expressing  himself  Cotton  was  but  putting  in  a  phrase 
of  definition  the  formative  principle  which  had  already  con- 
trolled the  colonial  legislation.  The  earliest  legislative  body 
in  the  Bay  was  the  court  of  assistants,  under  Endicott  as 
governor ;  and  at  their  initial  meeting  the  first  question  con- 
sidered was,  "How  the  ministers  shall  be  mayntained?" 
This  was  at  once  answered  by  ordering  that  houses  should  be 
built  for  them,  and  competent  provision  be  made  in  supplies  and 
money  "  at  the  publicke  expense."  3  Three  months  afterward 
the  court  ordered  a  tax  to  raise  £60  for  this  purpose.  After-  Church  tax. 
ward  there  are  many  acts  of  the  legislature  having  reference  to 
such  provision.  Thus,  in  1637,  the  people  of  Newberry  having 
proved  remiss,  the  general  court  ordered  the  selectmen  to  levy 
a  tax  for  the  minister's  support;  and  in  1638  enacted  a  general 
law  that  "  all  inhabitants  are  lyable  to  assessment  for  Church 
as  for  State,"  the  tax  to  be  collected  by  distraint,  if  necessary. 
At  the  very  beginning  of  the  government  there  was  by  such 
action  imbedded  in  the  constitution  one  essential  feature  of 
an  established  Church,  Church-rates  to  be  levied  and  collected 
by  the  civil  officer.  There  it  remained  a  part  of  Massachusetts 

1  Davenport,  Life  of  Cotton. 

2  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  Appendix. 
8  Massachusetts  Records. 


170 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Merry 
Mount. 


Freemen. 


law  for  two  hundred  years,  not  giving  way  until  long  after 
the  political  independence  of  the  United  States  was  effected.1 

An  early  instance  of  opposition  is  related  by  Hutchinson. 
One  Briscoe,  a  tanner  of  Watertown,  published  in  1644  a 
pamphlet  against  the  Church  tax,  arguing  that  such  method 
of  supporting  religion  was  immoral  and  contrary  to  justice, 
and  that  ministers  accepting  moneys  so  raised,  disgraced 
themselves  and  the  cause  of  religion.  For  this  publication 
he  was  summoned  before  the  general  court  and  gravely 
admonished. 

It  is  worth  while  to  notice,  in  passing,  that  this  first  court 
of  assistants  emphasized  their  care  for  religion  in  another 
way.  At  the  first  meeting,  having  disposed  of  ministerial 
support,  they  cited  Morton  of  Mount  Wollaston  —  or  Merry 
Mount  —  to  answer  for  his  "godless"  conduct,  and  at  their 
next  session  ordered  that  he  be  sent  to  England,  his  goods 
confiscated  to  pay  costs,  and  his  house  burned.  Presently 
thereafter  they  ordered  "  all  cards  and  dice  to  be  made  away 
with."  Their  settlement  was  distinctly  religious,  and  what- 
soever legislation  was  deemed  needful  to  sustain  religion  and 
keep  the  people  in  religious  ways  the  authorities  scrupled 
not  to  enact  out  of  any  consideration  of  personal  liberty. 

The  next  step  in  the  establishment  of  a  State-Church  was 
taken  by  the  first  general  court,  which  met  on  May  18,  1631. 
At  this  session  applications  to  be  "  admitted  Freemen.  "  were 
made  by  one  hundred  and  ten  persons.  The  applicants  were 
admitted,  on  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance ;  but  the  court,  as 
though  alarmed  by  so  large  an  influx  of  citizens  and  fearing 
the  consequences  of  too  wide  entrance  to  the  franchise,  im- 

1  Hutchinson  (History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  427)  says  :  "  The  ministers 
of  Boston  have  ever  been  supported  by  a  free  weekly  contribution.  ...  In 
the  country  towns  compulsory  laws  were  found  to  be  necessary."  This 
would  seem  to  imply  that  such  laws  were  an  afterthought,  which  the  records 
show  not  to  have  been  the  case.  The  exception  noted  in  the  Boston  Churches 
was  due  to  their  own  voluntary  provision,  and  not  to  any  exception  from  the  law, 
which  was  general.  Had  their  voluntary  contributions  failed  of  the  needed 
amount,  they  would  have  found  the  law  compulsory  on  them,  as  on  others. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  171 

mediately  took  the  following  action,  the  importance  of  which 
as  defining  the  colonial  aim  cannot  be  exaggerated.  The 
act  is  in  these  words :  "  To  the  end  the  body  of  the  commons 
may  be  preserved  of  honest  and  good  men,  it  is  ordered 
and  agreed,  that,  for  the  time  to  come,  noe  man  shall  be 
admitted  to  the  freedome  of  this  body  polliticke,  but  such 
as  are  members  of  some  of  the  Churches  within  the  lymitts 
of  the  same." 

This  restriction  of  the  franchise  went  further  than  the 
intent  recited  in  the  act,  "  to  preserve  the  body  of  the  com- 
mons of  honest  and  good  men."  It  went  further  than  the 
requirement  of  religious  character,  or  profession,  on  the  part 
of  electors,  and  confined  the  suffrage  to  members  of  a  partic- 
ular Church  approved  and  supported  by  the  state.  There  were 
"honest  and  good  men"  in  the  colony  who  were  not  mem- 
bers in  that  Church,  and  could  not  vote.  This  class  so  in- 
creased in  number  that  at  the  time,  1665,  when  the  restriction 
was  somewhat  relaxed,  it  was  estimated  that  they  outnum- 
bered the  freemen  in  the  ratio  of  five  to  one. 

Nor  could  the  condition  of  freemen  be  obtained  by  the 
most  positive  evidences  of  Christian  character.  Neither 
Episcopalian,  nor  Presbyterian,  nor  Baptist,  of  howsoever 
exalted  spiritual  standing,  could  be  a  freeman.  The  only 
legal  evidence  that  even  a  saint  had  honesty  and  goodness 
enough  to  fit  him  for  the  sacred  duty  of  voting  for  a  con- 
stable was  the  certificate  of  some  minister  that  he  was  a 
member  of  a  Congregational  Church  "in  good  and  regular 
standing."  This  is  precisely  the  ground  occupied  by  the 
parliament  of  England  in  its  acts  of  uniformity,  debarring 
from  all  civil  privileges  and  office  every  man  not  a  member 
of  the  Anglican  Church,  and  from  the  oppression  of  which 
these  Puritans  had  come  across  the  sea.  The  only  difference 
was  that  parliament  established  Episcopacy,  while  the  gen- 
eral court  of  Massachusetts  established  Congregationalism.1 

1  There  is  one  exception  to  the  stringent  law  of  the  franchise  recorded  in 
the  early  history  of  the  colony.  This  is  in  the  case  of  a  Mr.  Humphries  of 


172  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Reasons  for  The  reasons  of  such  action  by  the  fathers  of  Massachusetts 
exclusive-  are  no^  far  ^o  seek.  They  came  into  the  wilderness  to  estab- 
lish for  themselves  a  religious  commonwealth,  in  which  both 
State  and  Church  should  be  patterned  after  their  own  mind, 
and  into  which  they  desired  that  none  should  come,  who  were 
not  in  thorough  sympathy  with  themselves  on  these  cardinal 
points.  They  made  little  of  what  in  modern  phrase  is  called 
the  "  solidarity  of  humanity."  Their  asylum  was  not  founded 
as  a  refuge  for  all  the  oppressed.  The  world  was  wide. 
There  was  yet  ample  room  in  America :  let  those  who  were 
not  of  them  keep  away  from  them.  "I  do  take  upon  me," 
says  the  "  Simple  Cobler  of  Aggawam,"  —  in  words  already 
quoted,  — "  to  be  the  Herald  of  New  England,  so  far  as  to 
proclaim  to  the  world  in  the  name  of  the  Colony,  that  all 
Familists,  Antinomians,  Anabaptists,  and  other  Enthusiasts 
shall  have  free  Liberty  to  keep  away  from  us,  and  such  as 
will  come  to  be  gone  as  fast  as  they  can,  the  sooner  the 
better."i 

There  has  been  made  no  better  defence  of  this  policy  of 
restriction  shown,  not  only  in  the  law  of  franchise,  but  also 
in  the  laws  touching  the  domicile  of  strangers,  than  is  found 
in  the  "  Considerations"  of  Winthrop,  of  which  the  following 
are  specially  in  point :  — 

"1.  If  the  place  of  our  co-habitation  be  our  own,  then  no 
man  hath  a  right  to  come  unto  us,  &c.,  without  our 
consent. 

"  2.  If  no  man  hath  a  right  to  our  land,  government  privi- 
leges, &c.,  but  by  our  consent,  then  it  is  reason  that 
we  should  take  notice  of  (them)  before  we  confer 
any  such  upon  them. 

Lynn,  who  was  an  assistant  for  several  years.    There  was  no  Church  at 
Lynn  when  he  was  made  freeman,  and  he  never  afterward  became  a  Church- 
member.    Cotton  says  that  he  would  have  so  done,  "if  there  had  been 
opportunity  !  "     (Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  423.) 
1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  173 

"  3.  If  we  are  bound  to  keep  off  whatsoever  appears  to  tend 
to  our  ruin  or  damage,  then  may  we  lawfully  refuse 
to  receive  such  whose  dispositions  suit  not  with  ours, 
and  whose  society  (we  know)  will  be  hurtful  to  us. 

"  7.  A  family  is  a  little  commonwealth  and  a  commonwealth 
a  great  family.  Now  as  a  family  is  not  bound  to 
receive  all  comers,  no  more  is  a  commonwealth. 

"  8.  It  is  worse  to  receive  a  man,  whom  we  must  cast  out 
again,  than  to  deny  him  admission."  1 

One  other  step  remained  to  make  the  establishment  com-  A  state 
plete.  This  was  the  giving  to  the  magistrates  power  over  Church- 
the  Churches  themselves,  and  it  was  accomplished  by  an  act 
of  the  general  court  in  1635.  Already  it  would  seem  that 
irregularities  had  occurred  in  the  matter  of  organizing 
Churches,  and  the  court  proceeded  to  ordain  a  uniformity 
and  prevent  all  diversities  in  ecclesiastical  polity.  The  act 
recites : 2  "  This  Court  doeth  not,  nor  will  hereafter,  approve 
of  any  such  companyes  of  men  as  shall  henceforthe  ioyne  in 
any  pretended  way  of  Church  fellowship,  without  they  shall 
first  acquaint  the  magistrates  and  the  elders  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  Churches  in  this  jurisdiction  with  their  intentions, 
and  have  their  approbation  herein  :  and  noe  person,  being  a 
member  of  any  Church  which  shall  hereafter  be  gathered  with- 
out the  approbation  of  the  magistrates  and  the  greater  part 
of  the  Churches,  shall  be  admitted  to  the  ffreedome  of  this 
comonwealthe." 

This   effectually  put  into   the   hands  of  the  civil   power 
authority  over  the  Church,  an  authority  not  only  controlling 
questions  of  organization  and  polity,  but  assuming  inquisi-  inquisitorial 
torial  power.     Indeed,  before  this  act  the  general  court  had  pcn 
not  hesitated  to  inquire  into  the  affairs  of  the  local  Churches. 
Prince  relates 3  that  one  Richard  Browne  of  Watertown  had 

iHutchinson,  Collections,  pp.  68,  69. 

2  Massachusetts  Colonial  Records.        8  Annals,  III,  38. 


174  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

said,  that  "  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a  true  Church,  basing 
his  opinion  on  the  fact  that  the  Reformed  Churches  did  not 
re-baptize  those  who  came  over  from  Rome."  The  Church  at 
Watertown  had  just  chosen  Browne  for  an  elder,  and  the  general 
court  notified  the  Church  that  "  he  was  not  a  proper  person  for 
such  office."  This  took  place  in  1631.  In  like  exercise  of 
power  the  court,  as  will  presently  be  noted,  rebuked  the  Salem 
Church  for  calling  Roger  Williams  to  the  pastorate,  compelling 
the  Church  to  dismiss  Williams  and  to  apologize  for  its  conduct.1 

The  court  also  took  upon  itself  to  scrutinize  any  persons 
attempting  to  preach,  forbidding  all  unauthorized  persons, 
and  also  forbidding  any  one  to  preach  before  an  unauthorized 
society.  In  1650  a  Mr.  Matthews,  for  preaching  to  an  unau- 
thorized Church,  was  fined  <£10.2  Such  actions  were  based 
upon  the  principle  formally  adopted  by  the  general  court 
(1641)  that  "  The  civil  authority  .  .  .  hath  power  and  liberty 
to  see  the  peace,  ordinances,  and  rules  of  Christ  observed  in 
every  Church,  according  to  His  word.  ...  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
Christian  magistrate  to  take  care  that  the  people  be  fed  with 
wholesome  and  sound  doctrine  "  (1658) .3  Again  in  1660,  the 
following  was  enacted:  "  It  being  the  great  duty  of  this  court 
(to  see)  that  all  places  and  people  within  our  gates  be  sup- 
plied by  an  able  and  faithful  ministry  of  God's  holy  word  .  .  . 
the  president  of  each  county  court  shall  duly,  from  time  to 
time,  give  it  in  charge  to  the  grand  juries  to  present  all  abuses 
and  neglects  of  this  kind."  Eight  years  later,  the  court  de- 
clared :  "  The  Christian  magistrate  is  bound  by  the  word  of 
God  to  preserve  the  peace,  order,  and  liberty  of  the  Churches 
of  Christ,  and  by  all  due  means  to  promote  religion  in  doctrine 
and  discipline."  4 

The  Massachusetts  establishment  differed  from  the  State 
Church  in  England  and  in  other  colonies  in  that  the  law 

1  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  423. 

2  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  42,  53. 
8  Massachusetts  Colonial  Laws,  pp.  100,  101. 

*Ibid.,  p.  104. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  17u 

conferred  no  right  of  presentation,  save  under  special  circum-  Eight  of 
stances.       The  choice  of  minister  was  left  to   the  people ;  ]fi*^ientar 
but  the  law  of  1692 1  provided  that  the  county  court  should 
"take  care  that  no  town  is  destitute  of  a  minister."     In  case 
of  any  such  vacancy,  the  court  should  notify  the  Church  to 
choose ;  and,   if  the  Church  neglected  to  do  so,  the  court 
should  procure  and  settle  a  minister  and  levy  on  the  town 
for  his  support. 

Another  great  contrast  is  to  be  noted  in  the  source  of  the  Origin, 
establishment.  In  England  the  crown  and  parliament,  with- 
out any  consultation  with  the  people,  built  up  the  fabric  of 
the  Anglican  Church.  The  Church  was  imposed  upon  the 
nation  by  the  monarch.  A  similar  fact  exists  in  the  history 
of  those  colonies  in  which  the  Church  of  England  was  estab- 
lished. That  Church  came  into  possession  by  a  royal  rescript, 
a  clause  of  the  charter,  or  of  instructions  from  the  crown  or 
the  board  of  trade.  It  was  imposed  on  those  colonies  with- 
out any  consideration  as  to  whether  the  inhabitants  were  in 
sympathy  with  it  —  a  royal  demand  that  what  religious  polity 
should  obtain  among  them  should  be  that  which  the  king  ap- 
proved. It  is  true  that  the  house  of  burgesses  in  Virginia 
did  by  formal  act  establish  the  Church  of  England  as  the 
State-Church  of  the  colony,  but  in  so  doing  they  were  in 
effect  only  recognizing  and  confirming  that  which  a  dozen 
years  before  had  been  ordered  by  the  crown.  This  deter- 
mination by  the  home  government,  it  is  also  to  be  observed, 
was  in  most  instances  against  the  desire  of  the  colonies 
and  the  religious  preferences  of  the  people.  This  was 
eminently  the  fact  in  Maryland  from  the  beginning,  and 
afterward  became  so  in  Virginia,  while  not  more  than  one 
in  twenty  of  the  people  of  New  York  approved  the  futile 
efforts  of  Cornbury  to  establish  the  Church  of  England  in 
that  province. 

The  contrast  presented  in  Massachusetts  is  marked.   There 
was  studious  avoidance  of  any  religious  establishment  in  the 

1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Laws,  p.  244. 


1T6 


RISE  OP  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


charter,  and  the  crown  attempted  no  dictation  on  the  subject 
of  the  Church.  But  immediately  that  the  planters  were  settled 
they  supplied  the  lack  for  themselves,  building  up  a  State- 
Church  on  as  rigid  lines  and  as  sharp  requirements  of  uni- 
formity as  those  which  intrenched  the  Anglican  Church  in 
the  English  constitution.  This  was  the  expression  of  the 
popular  will  of  early  Massachusetts.  The  fact  cannot  receive 
too  great  an  emphasis.  What  the  people  of  that  day  wanted 
they  established.  The  hardships  of  the  after  condition  arose, 
not  from  any  dictation  of  external  authority,  but  from  the 
incoming  of  persons  who  were  not  of  the  same  mind,  and  from 
the  growth  of  population  out  of  sympathy  with  the  purposes 
and  measures  of  their  fathers. 

Under  the  earlier  conditions  which  the  more  rigid  of  the 
second  and  third  generation  strove  to  maintain,  there  was 
much  legislation,  both  to  support  the  Church  as  an  establish- 
ment, and  to  conserve  the  religious  character  of  the  corn- 
Domicile,  munity.  Thus,  very  early,  the  law  of  domicile  guarded 
against  strangers  and  required  all  people  to  live  within  easy 
distance  of  the  meeting-house,  so  that  all  could  attend  wor- 
Heresy.  ship.1  In  1646  the  Act  against  Heresy  ordained  that  any 
person  denying  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  or  the  resurrec- 
tion, or  sin  in  the  regenerate,  or  the  need  of  repentance,  or 
the  redemption  by  Christ,  or  justification  through  Christ,  or 
the  morality  of  the  fourth  commandment,  or  the  baptism 
of  infants,  or  "  who  shall  purposely  depart  the  congregation  at 
the  administration  of  that  ordinance,"  2  or  shall  endeavor  to 
seduce  others  to  any  of  these  heresies,  should  be  banished. 
Contempt.  In  the  same  year,  contemptuous  conduct  toward  the  word 
or  preacher  was  made  punishable ;  for  the  first  offence,  by  a 
public  reproof  from  the  magistrate  and  bonds  for  good  behav- 
ior; for  the  second  offence,  by  five  shillings  fine,  or  by 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  253  ;  Weeden,  Social  and  Economic  History  of 
New  England,  pp.  20,  72,  73,  80. 

2  This  clause  compelled  the  resignation  of  Rev.  Henry  Dunster,  the  first 
President  of  Harvard  College  (1654),  though  he  was  not  banished. 


THE  PUKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  177 

"  standing  on  a  block  four  feet  high,"  having  on  the  breast 
a  placard  with  the  words,  — 

"Ax  OPEN  AND  OBSTINATE  CONTEMNER  OF  GOD'S  HOLY 
ORDINANCES  "  * 

One  can  hardly  fail  of  noting  the  wide  divergence  between 
this  law  and  its  Preamble.  The  statute  begins,  "  Although 
no  human  power  be  lord  over  the  conscience,  yet  because 
such  as  bring  in  damnable  heresies  .  .  .  ought  duly  to  be 
restrained."  Evidently,  in  the  Puritan  view  there  was  a 
human  lordship  of  every  conscience  save  their  own !  They 
demanded  for  themselves  a  power  which  they  denied  to  all 
other  men. 

By  the  same  law  non-attendance  on  divine  service  was  Non-attend- 
punished  by  a  fine  of  five  shillings.  In  1656  it  was  enacted  a 
that  any  person  denying  any  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  should 
be  whipped  or  fined,  and,  if  obstinate,  banished.  The  law  of 
1697  against  "  Blasphemy  and  Atheism  "  is  remarkable  both 
for  the  ingenuity  of  its  penalties,  and  as  an  indication  that 
only  a  sense  of  waning  religious  power  in  the  magistrate 
could  so  express  itself.  In  the  act,  which  finds  both  atheism 
and  blasphemy  in  "  denying  the  true  God,"  various  penalties 
are  awarded ;  surety  for  good  behavior,  imprisonment  for 
six  months,  the  pillory,  whipping,  boring  the  tongue  with  a 
hot  iron,  and  sitting  on  the  gallows  with  a  rope  about  the 
neck,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court ;  provided  that  not  more 
than  two  of  such  penalties  be  inflicted  for  one  and  the  same 
offence. 

Of  course,  under  the  general  law  Roman  Catholics  were  Romanists, 
not  suffered  to  live  in  the  colony.     In  1647  Jesuits  were  for- 
bidden to  enter  the  colony.     If  any  should  come,  they  were 
at  once  to  be  banished ;  if  they  returned,  to  be  put  to  death. 

We  find  another  illustration  of  the  religious  and  "  ortho- 
dox "  intent  in  the  "  Articles  of  Confederation,"  which 
(1643)  bound  together  the  colonies  of  Massachusetts,  Ply- 

1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Laws,  pp.  101,  102,  120,  129,  302. 


N 


ITS 


KISE   OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


New  Eng- 
land Con- 
federacy. 


Power  of 
ministers. 


mouth,  Connecticut,  and  New  Haven  in  the  "  New  England 
Confederacy."  The  preamble  recites :  "  Whereas  we  all  came 
into  these  parts  of  America  with  one  and  the  same  end  and 
aim,  viz.;  to  advance  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
to  enjoy  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel  in  purity  and  peace;" 
and  declares  as  one  of  the  objects  of  the  union,  "  preserving 
and  propagating  the  truth  and  liberties  of  the  gospel."  It 
was  defined  that  only  Church  members  could  be  commission- 
ers to  the  federal  council.  The  immediately  practical  aim  of 
the  union  was  mutual  aid  in  defence  against  the  Indians,  but 
the  colonists  could  not  take  measures  for  such  a  purpose  save 
in  the  name  of  religion.  Uniformity  also,  or  at  least  regu- 
larity, seems  to  have  been  no  less  of  a  requirement ;  for  when 
Rhode  Island  applied  for  admission  into  the  confederacy  it 
was  refused,  because  "  they  ran  a  different  course  both  in 
their  ministry  and  in  their  civil  administration." l 

Thus  the  religious  quality  of  early  Massachusetts  was  with 
its  State-Church  very  prominent  and  emphatic.  It  more  than 
justified  Dudley's  language  in  his  letter  to  the  Countess  of 
Lincoln :  "  If  any  come  hether  to  plant  for  worldly  ends, 
that  canne  live  well  at  home,  hee  comits  an  errour  of  which 
hee  will  soon  repent  him.  But  if  for  spirituall,  and  that  noe 
particular  obstacle  hinder  his  removeall,  he  may  find  here 
what  may  well  content  him."  2 

It  were  impossible  that  in  a  community  so  constituted  the 
ministry  should  fail  of  acquiring  an  immense  influence.  They 
did  not  as  such,  after  the  fashion  of  the  "  spiritual  lords "  in 
parliament,  occupy  seats  in  the  legislature,  but  their  power 
was  very  great  and  very  general.  Their  advice  on  all  mat- 
ters of  importance,  and  on  many  of  trivial  nature,  was  sought 
by  the  magistrates.  Without  exception  they  were  men  of 
education  and  sincere  godliness,  without  fear  in  the  ways  of 
conscience,  as  ready  to  suffer  as  to  speak.  But  for  the  most 

1  Massachusetts  Colonial  Laws,  p.  722  ;  Bancroft,  History  of  United 
States,  I,  422. 

3  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  II,  12. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  179 

part  they  were  intensely  narrow,  unable  to  conceive  that 
truth  could  lodge  outside  of  their  own  lines,  and  as  bigoted 
and  harsh  as  were  the  spiritual  lords  from  whose  tyranny 
themselves  had  fled.  Among  his  censorious  brethren  the 
charity  of  the  gentle  Shepherd  shows 

"  Fair  as  a  star,  when  only  one 
Is  shining  in  the  sky." 

Morton  in  his  Memorial 1  gives  a  curious  illustration  of  the  feel- 
ing common  among  the  ministry.  When  Wilson,  the  pastor 
at  Boston,  was  dying,  he  was  asked  what  were  the  special 
sins  which  provoked  the  displeasure  of  God  against  the  coun- 
try. He  replied  that  the  chief  were  Separation,  Anabaptism, 
and  Korahism,  defining  the  last  as  a  rising-up  of  the  people 
against  their  ministers  and  elders,  as  though  they  took  too 
much  upon  them.  Wilson  died  in  1667,  when  the  power  of 
the  ministers  had  begun  to  be  impaired. 

It  needs  to  be  noted,  however,  that,  while  the  official  dig- 
nity and  authority  of  the  ministers  were  very  great,  there 
was  nothing  therein  of  a  priestly  quality.  It  was  solely  be- 
cause of  character  and  ability  that  they  were  put  into  their 
sacred  office.  Every  man  of  them  had  to  be  able  to  render 
a  reason  other  than  the  sacred  character  of  his  office,  or  lose 
both  place  and  respect.  The  functions  of  their  office,  with 
all  its  power  and  privilege,  were  rigidly  conditioned  on  per- 
sonal character  and  ability.2 

The   Abstract   of  Laws   drawn   up  by  Cotton  was  never 
adopted  by  the  general  court,  and  all  law  was  within  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  magistrate.     In  1641  a  code  was  compiled  by  civil  code. 
Rev.  Nathaniel  Ward,  author  of  the  "  Simple  Ooller  of  Agga- 
wam."     This  code  was  unwillingly  adopted  by  the  legislature 

1  Page  211. 

2  Scottow's  Narrative  (Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  4  ;  295) 
abounds  in  praises  of  the  early  ministry,  in  some  places  with  elephantine 
humor,  as  in  the  celebrated  "Quaternion,  viz:  Mr.   Cotton,  J&minent  for 
Spiritual  Clothing,  and  Mather  for  Caelestial  Dyeing,  Hooker  for  Soul  Fish- 
ing, Stone  for  Building  up  in  the  Holy  Faith." 


180  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

and  named  the  "  Body  of  Liberties  " ;  the  court  being  com- 
pelled to  this  action  by  the  murmurs  of  the  people,  who  had 
become  impatient  of  a  situation,  which  left  all  penalty  to  the 
discretion,  and  sometimes  whimsical  caprice,  of  the  courts.1 

Of  the  code  Winthrop  writes  in  his  Journal  under  date  of 
December :  "  This  session  established  100  Laws,  which  were 
called  the  Body  of  Liberties,  composed  by  Mr.  Nathaniel 
Ward,  sometime  Pastor  of  the  Church  at  Ipswich."  The 
code  differs  from  Cotton's  Abstract  materially,  save  that  "  in 
the  article  entitled  Capital  Laws  each  clause  is  supported  by 
texts  from  the  Old  Testament."2  There  is  no  need  here  of 
any  analysis  of  this  collection  of  laws,  or  of  quotation,  beyond 
one  peculiar  regulation  as  to  forming  a  Church,  viz. :  "  All 
the  people  of  God  within  this  Jurisdiction,  who  are  not  in  a 
Church  way,  and  be  orthodox  in  judgement  and  not  scandal- 
ous in  life,  shall  have  full  liberty  to  gather  themselves  into 
a  Church  estate :  Provided,  that  they  do  it  in  a  Christian 
way,  with  due  observance  of  the  rules  of  Christ  revealed  in 
his  word." 

This  may  be  looked  upon  as  a  step  toward  liberty,  for 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  III,  8  ;  192,  208  ;  Palfrey,  History 
of  New  England,  I,  279.     Some  of  the  penalties  awarded  under  this  early 
anomalous  arrangement  were  notable,  and  of  them  a  few  illustrations  are 
quite  in  place  here.     (Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  436  ;  Massachu- 
setts and  Her  Early  History,  p.  89  ;  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  231.)     A  Captain 
Stone,  for  "  abusing  Mr.  Ludlow  (a  justice  of  the  peace)  and  calling  him  just- 
ass,  is  fined  £100,  and  prohibited  coming  within  the  patent  without  the  gov- 
ernor's leave  upon  pain  of  death."     "  Mr.   Willi.  Foster,  appearing,  was 
informed  that  we  conceive  him  not  fit  to  live  with  us  ;  therefore  he  was  wished 
to  depart."    Ambros.  Martin,  for  calling  the  Church  covenant  a  "stinking 
carryon  and  a  human  invention,"  was  fined  £10  and  sent  to  Mr.  Mather  for 
instruction.     F.  Hutchinson,  "for  calling  the  Church  of  Boston,  a  whore,  a 
strumpet,  and  other  corrupt  tenets,"  was  sentenced  to  £50  fine,  to  be  impris- 
oned until  paid,  and  then  to  be  banished  on  pain  of  death.     "  It  is  ordered 
that  Josias  Plastowe  shall  (for  stealing  4  bushels  of  corn  from  the  Indians) 
return  them  8  back  again,  be  fined  £5,  and  hereafter  be  called  by  the  name 
of  Josias,  and  not  Mr.,  as  he  used  to  be."     (Palfrey,  History  of  New  Eng- 
land, I,  300.) 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  8;  192,  234. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  181 

though  the  permission  here  given  is  from  the  magistrate  with 
a  power  of  review,  and  it  was  possible  for  a  strict  construc- 
tionist  to  decide  that  no  non-Congregational  form  of  Church 
estate  was  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  Christ,  yet  we  have 
it  on  Winthrop's l  authority  that  there  was  a  disposition  to 
concede  freedom  of  Presbyterian  worship.  This  was  in  keep- 
ing with  the  greater  liberality  of  the  code  in  regard  to  other 
matters.2  But  such  tendency  toward  a  larger  liberty  in  re- 
ligion was  speedily  arrested  by  the  "  Presbyterian  Cabal,"  to 
be  noted  presently. 

The  adoption  of  the  Body  of  Liberties  was  looked  upon  as 
happily  settling  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. So  Winthrop  wrote  in  his  "Small  Treatise" 
(1644)  :  "  It  appears  that  the  officers  of  this  body  politic  have 
a  Rule  to  walk  by  in  all  their  administrations,  which  Rule  is 
the  Word  of  God,  and  such  conclusions  and  deductions  as  are 
or  shall  be  regularly  drawn  from  thence.  .  .  .  The  funda- 
mentals which  God  gave  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel  were 
a  sufficient  rule  to  them,  to  guide  all  their  affairs :  we  having 
the  same  with  all  the  additions,  explanations,  and  deductions 
which  have  followed,  it  is  not  possible  we  should  want  a  rule 
in  any  case,  if  God  give  us  wisdom  to  discern  it."  3  In  much 
stronger  language  wrote  Cotton,  "  The  order  of  the  Churches 
and  the  Commonwealth  is  now  so  settled  in  New  England  by 
common  consent,  that  it  brings  to  mind  the  new  heaven  and 
new  earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness."  * 

But   this  condition  was  not  arrived  at  without  struggle. 
Hardly  had  the  first  course  been  laid  in  the  foundation  of  the 
new  theocratic  commonwealth  when  the  troubler  of  its  peace 
appeared.     Roger  Williams  landed  at  Boston  in   February  Roger 
of  1631,  and  brought  with  him  a  bundle  of  notions  which  the  Williams- 
Puritan  founders  could  ill  abide.     A  proteg6  of  the  great  Sir 

1  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  I,  437. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  418. 

8  Massachusetts  and  Her  Early  History,  p.  52. 
*  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  I,  368. 


182  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Edward  Coke,  whose  word  and  actions  in  after  years  were  so 
trenchant  and  influential  on  the  side  of  freedom  in  the  Great 
Rebellion,  he  had  received  from  his  patron  incentives  to  the 
most  liberal  views.  Educated  at  Cambridge  and  a  graduate 
of  Pembroke  College,  with  a  singularly  active  mind  and  as 
singular  boldness  in  expression  of  opinions,  he  soon  attracted 
to  himself  the  hostile  regard  of  Archbishop  Laud,  from  the 
reach  of  whose  arm  he  withdrew  into  New  England.  While 
in  England  he  became  a  devoted  friend  of  Hooker  and  Cot- 
ton, whom  he  preceded  to  America,  and  who  were  not  able  to 
equal  him  in  extreme  liberality  of  views;  and  the  latter  of 
whom,  with  his  usual  facility  to  coincide  with  the  dominant 
party,  is  found  assenting  to  the  banishment  of  his  friend. 

On  Williams's  arrival  at  Boston  he  at  once  signalized  his 
peculiarity  of  mind  by  refusing  to  join  the  Boston  Church,1 
because  "they  had  not  publicly  declared  repentance  for 
former  communion  with  the  Church  of  England,"  and  also 
because  the  Boston  Church  had  shown  a  sympathy  with  per- 
secutors. He  also  expressed  his  opinion  that  the  magistrate 
had  no  right  to  punish  a  breach  of  the  first  table  of  the  law, 
and  that  his  function  was  limited  to  those  offences  which  vio- 
lated only  the  second  table.  Despite  the  singularity  of  these 
views,  his  sweetness  of  disposition,  his  marked  spirituality  of 
religious  character,  and  his  evident  ability  so  won  upon  the 
people  of  Salem  that  they  immediately  called  him  to  take  the 
place  of  teacher,  vacated  six  months  before  by  the  death  of 
Higginson. 

From  the  pulpit  of  the  Salem  Church,  Williams  at  once 
began  to  express  these  and  other  opinions  quite  opposite  to 
those  dominant  in  the  Bay.  The  Boston  authorities  had 
already  remonstrated  with  the  Salem  Church  for  calling 
Williams,  and  when  to  his  first  offence  he  added  insistence 
on,  and  amplification  of,  his  dangerous  and  distasteful  opin- 
ions, their  indignation  was  extreme.  He  was  fearless  in 
denouncing  what  he  regarded  as  error,  and  especially  the 
i  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  I,  20. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  183 

fundamental  error  of  the  commonwealth  in  conceding  to  the 
magistrate  any  power  over  religious  matters. 

"  Everything  in  the  polity  of  Massachusetts  was  made  sub- 
servient to  the  interest  of  the  State,  and  that  State  was  virtu- 
ally and  exclusively  the  Puritan  Church."1  To  the  average 
New  England  Puritan  of  the  day,  of  course  with  the  implied 
premise  that  his  Church  was  the  only  one  that  had  the  truth, 
it  was  difficult  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  two  blended 
institutions.  To  such  a  view  the  attempt  to  separate  these 
factors  of  a  godly  state,  and,  more  than  that,  the  hardihood 
of  asserting  such  union  to  be  a  sin  against  God  and  con- 
science, took  on  the  gravity  of  a  heresy,  alike  impious  and 
dangerous  to  the  public  weal. 

From  the  mutterings  of  the  storm  Williams,  after  but  few 
months  at  Salem,  deemed  it  prudent  to  retire  for  refuge  to 
Plymouth.  There  he  was  received  with  both  kindness  and 
honor.  The  tolerant  Pilgrims,  happy  in  serving  God  in  such 
way  as  their  conscience  approved,  content  to  accord  to  other 
men  an  equal  liberty  and  abstaining  from  all  attempts  to 
forcibly  fuse  things  civil  and  religious,  at  once  tendered  to 
this  first  American  refugee  from  religious  persecution  the 
place  of  teacher  in  their  own  Church,  assistant  to  the  pastor, 
Ralph  Smith.  Here  Williams  remained  for  two  years,  la- 
boring most  acceptably  in  his  religious  office,  though,  as  must 
be  understood  from  the  fearless  and  conscientious  nature  of 
the  man,  abating  nothing  in  his  views  of  the  dignity  of  the 
conscience  and  the  natural  freedom  of  the  mind.  Bradford  2 
describes  him  as  "a  Man  godly  and  zealous,  having  many 
precious  Parts,  but  veiy  unsettled  in  judgment.  .  .  .  His 
teaching  was  well  approved,  for  the  benefit  of  which  I  still 
bless  God,  and  am  thankful  to  him  even  for  his  sharpest  Ad- 
monitions and  Reproofs,  so  far  as  they  agreed  with  Truth." 

The  judicial  mind  of  the  Plymouth  governor  was  undoubt- 

1  Arnold,  History  of  Rhode  Island,  I,  33. 

2  Prince,  Annals,  II,  48;  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England, 
I,  187. 


184  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

edly  correct  in  its  opinion  of  Williams,  who,  besides  the 
countless  tokens  of  an  almost  prophetic  insight  into  the 
nature  of  religion  in  its  relation  to  the  communal  life  and 
the  natural  liberty  of  mind,  at  the  same  time  made  evident 
an  "unsettled  judgment"  in  sundry  matters  of  public  concern- 
ment, the  utterance  of  which  served,  not  only  to  increase  the 
opposition  of  his  foes,  but  also  to  cloud  the  real  issue  involved. 
Vagaries.  One  of  these  vagaries  was  his  denunciation  of  the  Boston 

Church  for  non-repentance  of  former  membership  in  the 
English  Church.  The  thought  was  absurd  and  its  statement 
could  only  annoy.  Another  absurdity  was  his  doctrine  that 
the  magistrate  ought  not  to  administer  the  oath  to  an  unre- 
generate  person,  on  the  ground  that  making  oath  was  an  act 
of  worship,  which  the  unregenerate  could  not  perform  and 
the  magistrate  should  not  require !  This  was  Williams's  objec- 
tion to  an  act  passed  by  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  in 
April,  1634.1 

While  at  Plymouth,  Williams  issued  a  pamphlet  in  which 
he  inveighed  against  the  royal  patent  of  Massachusetts  as 
conferring  title  to  lands  which  the  king  could  not  give,  and 
which  could  only  be  rightfully  obtained  by  purchase  from 
the  Indians.  However  correct  in  theory  his  position  might 
be,  as  affected  the  Indian  titles,  the  argument  of  the  pam- 
phlet was  considered  by  the  men  of  the  Bay  as  both  disloyal 
to  the  king  and  assailing  the  foundation  of  the  colony. 

Notwithstanding  such  manifestations,  however,  the  Church 
of  Salem,  on  the  death  of  Skelton  in  January,  163|, 
called  Williams  to  the  vacant  pastorate.  This  call  he  was 
quite  ready  to  accept,  but,  on  seeking  dismission  from  the 
Plymouth  Church,  he  was  met  by  unwillingness  to  release 
him.  The  character  and  ability  of  Williams  had  so  won 

1The  act,  "upon  intelligence  of  some  Episcopal  and  malignant  practices 
against  the  country,"  framed  an  oath,  to  be  made  by  every  male  resident  not 
a  freeman,  promising  allegiance  and  obedience  to  the  colonial  government. 
(Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  271 ;  Arnold,  Rhode  Island,  I,  27,  30.) 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  "malignant  practices"  referred  to  the  teachings 
of  Williams. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  185 

upon  the  people  that  they  were  much  disturbed.  At  the 
same  time  there  was  doubt  as  to  how  far  his  idiosyncrasies 
might  carry  him,  and  the  question  was  decided  by  Brewster's 
suggestion  that  there  were  "  abler  men  in  the  Bay,  who 
could  better  deal  with  him,  than  the  men  at  Plymouth." l 

Meanwhile,  the  neighboring  ministers,  looking  with  great 
disfavor  on  the  prospect  of  Williams's  return  to  Salem,  com-  Return  to 
plained  to  the  general  court,  alleging  the  disloyalty  of  his  Salem< 
pamphlet.      This   charge   he   seems   to  have  met  with  dis- 
claimers of  all  disloyal  intentions,  so  that  the  court  felt  itself 
restrained  from  prohibitive  action,  though  looking  upon  the 
course  of  the  Salem  Church  as  "  a  great  contempt  of  author- 
ity."    In  consequence   of  this  the  court  refused  a  petition 
from  Salem  for  a  grant  of  adjoining  land. 

More  adverse  action,  however,  could  not  be  long  delayed, 
as  Williams,  settled  in  his  charge,  was  undeterred  by  author- 
ity or  by  fear  from  the  utterance  of  his  obnoxious  sentiments. 
He  was  ever  gentle  in  his  attitude  toward  individuals,  never 
resenting  personal  injuries  or  returning  reproaches,  yet  un- 
yielding and  uncompromising  in  his  zeal  for  religious  liberty. 
So  he  found  many  things  to  condemn  in  the  surrounding 
conditions.  There  was  not  a  principle  of  the  dominant 
theocracy  which  he  did  not  antagonize.  He  denounced  all 
intermeddling  of  the  magistrate  with  religious  matters.  "  Let 
any  man  show  me  a  commission  given  by  the  Son  of  God  to 
civil  powers  in  these  spiritual  affairs  of  His  Christian  king- 
dom and  worship."  2  He  objected  to  restriction  of  the  fran- 
chise and  office  to  Church  members ;  to  compulsory  attendance 
on  religious  service ;  to  the  civil  tax  for  support  of  the  min- 
istry. The  civil  power  had  no  administration  in  matters  of 
heresy.  "The  straining  of  men's  consciences  by  the  civil 
power  is  so  far  from  making  men  faithful  to  God  or  man, 
that  it  is  the  ready  way  to  render  them  false  to  both."  3 

1  Morton,  Memorial,  p.  102.  2  Bloody  Tenent,  p.  239. 

8  Bloody  Tenent  Still  More  Bloody,  p.  209;  Bancroft,  History  of  United 
States,  I,  370-372. 


186  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

In  the  meantime,  while  the  magistrates  were  smarting 
under  such  criticism  of  their  chosen  methods,  occurred  at 
Salem  the  silly  action  of  Endicott  in  cutting  the  cross  from 
the  English  flag,  on  the  ground  that  it  smacked  of  popery. 
With  this  folly  Williams,  says  Mather  in  the  Magnolia,  "  was 
but  obliquely  and  remotely  concerned."  It  is  not  probable 
that  he  was  concerned  in  it  at  all,  or  had  any  sympathy 
with  the  perpetrator  of  such  foolishness.  Two  more  opposite 
spirits  were  not  in  the  colony  than  Williams  and  Endicott. 
Process  But  the  action  precipitated  matters.  The  general  court 
against  reprimanded  Endicott  and  deprived  him  of  official  capacity 
for  a  year,  and  then  began  measures  of  reproof  to  the  Church 
at  Salem  and  its  pastor.  The  Church  was  notified  that  their 
petition  for  land  was  denied,  because  they  retained  Williams. 
On  this  Williams  and  the  Church  sent  letters  of  remonstrance 
to  the  other  Churches  asking  them  to  admonish  the  court  for 
its  injustice  to  Salem.  At  the  next  session  of  the  court  the 
Salem  delegates  were  refused  seats  until  they  should  "give 
satisfaction  about  the  letters."  Against  this  exclusion  Endi- 
cott protested,  and  was  at  once  committed  until  "  he  should 
acknowledge  his  fault." 1 

*  The   court   then   summoned   Williams  to  answer  for  his 

expressions  of  opinion  and  for  the  letter  to  the  Churches. 
Williams  justified  his  actions  and  doctrine,  and  by  the  court 
(October,  1635)  was  sentenced  to  banishment  within  six 
weeks.  Afterward  the  court  extended  the  time  limit  until 
the  spring,  on  account  of  the  inclement  season,  but  attached 
the  condition  of  complete  silence  as  to  his  peculiar  views. 

The  Church  of  Salem  was  cowed  and  made  humble  apol- 
ogy for  their  letter,  on  which  they  received  the  desired  grant 
of  land.  Williams  was  excluded  from  the  pulpit ;  but  in  his 
own  house,  whither  many  of  his  friends  resorted,  he  refused 
to  observe  the  command  to  silence  and  freely  uttered  his 
opinions.  This  was  regarded  by  the  magistrates  as  a  fla- 
grant breach  of  faith  and  order,  especially  as  "many  were 

i  Arnold,  Rhode  Island,  I,  34,  35,  38. 


THE   PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  187 

much  taken  with  the  apprehension  of  his  godliness,"  and 
"  his  opinions  were  contagious."  They  resolved  to  send  him 
to  England  on  a  ship  about  to  sail.  Williams,  unnotified  of 
this  intention,  was  summoned  to  Boston ;  but  he,  apprehend- 
ing violence,  refused  to  come.  The  magistrates  then  sent  a 
boat  to  Salem  with  a  force  sufficient  to  arrest  him  and  con- 
vey him  to  the  ship ;  but  when  the  company  reached  Salem 
their  prey  had  escaped.  Forewarned  by  friends,  Williams 
had  fled  forth  into  the  wintry  wilderness,  to  find  among  its 
savage  denizens  a  refuge  from  his  Christian  brethren.1 

Thus  took  form  the  first  case  of  religious  persecution  by 
the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts,  after  the  expulsion  of  the 
Brownes.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  to  contend  that  the  action 
against  Williams  was  mainly  for  teaching  doctrine  subversive 
of  the  civil  order.  That  his  teaching  had  such  tendency  is 
beyond  dispute.  Williams  declared  himself  opposed  to  the 
structural  principles  of  the  commonwealth.  If  his  doctrine 
should  be  allowed,  if  men  should  be  largely  persuaded  by  it, 
then  presently  all  the  religious  defences  of  the  state  would  be 
destroyed,  the  unregenerate  would  have  equal  power  and  priv- 
ilege with  the  saints,  and  the  entire  fabric  of  the  theocracy 
would  fall  to  the  ground.  This  is  evident,  not  only  as  a  thing 
of  fear  to  the  authorities  of  that  day,  but  as  a  necessary  issue 
from  the  prevalence  of  such  opinions.  To  men  in  power  the 
teaching  of  Williams  sounded  like  the  voice  of  anarchy. 

Justice  to  the  founders  of  Massachusetts  requires  that  this 
should  be  remembered.  Given  a  commonwealth  such  as 
they  had  founded,  and  a  resolution  to  maintain  it  in  its 
purity,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  they  could  do  otherwise  than 
expel  one  who  threatened  its  very  existence.  While  Will- 
iams spoke  from  the  religious  standpoint  and  in  defence  of 
the  God-given  rights  of  conscience  —  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  uttered  a  word  designed  against  the  state  and  social 
order  —  yet  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  the  standpoint  of 
the  authorities  might  be  one  which  regarded  chiefly  the  civil 

1  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  230-232,  294. 


188  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

conditions.  The  question  between  them  was  radical.  Is  a 
theocracy  —  a  state  merged  with  a  Church  —  right  and  pos- 
sible ?  He  said  "  No."  They  said  "  Yes ;  and  such  shall  be 
here."  After  that,  there  was  nothing  but  expulsion  for  the 
non-content  —  an  expulsion  which  could  logically  base  itself 
on  the  alleged  disturbance  of  the  public  peace  and  civil 
order.  Much  as  we  admire  the  wide  vision  of  Williams,  so 
clearly  discerning  the  principles  of  spiritual  freedom ;  deeply 
as  we  are  persuaded  of  the  fundamental  error  in  the  Massa- 
chusetts constitution,  we  yet  cannot  deny  to  their  action 
against  him  this  favorable  and,  if  their  theory  of  the  state 
were  right,  justifying  construction.  With  it,  there  still 
remains  the  question  how  far  they  might  go  in  the  repres- 
sion of  a  purely  religious  opinion,  which  in  no  true  sense 
involved  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  state. 

The  answer  to  this  question  was  not  long  delayed,  and  for 

it  the  materials  were  already  prepared  while  Williams  was 

yet  undisturbed  at  Salem.     In  1634  there  came  to  Boston 

Hutchmso-     that  remarkable  woman,  Anne  Hutchinson,  whom  Mather 

vers  contrCK  describes  as  "  a  gentlewoman  of  haughty  carriage,  a  busie 

spirit,  competent  wit,  and  a  voluble  tongue ; "  and  who  with 

her  purely  religious   teaching  created   in  the  colony  a  far 

greater  disturbance  than  did  Williams. 

It  is  impossible  to  be  satisfied  with  this  slighting  descrip- 
tion by  Mather.  What  he  said  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson  was 
true ;  but  she  was  far  more  and  better  than  that,  a  person  of 
exceptional  and  varied  ability,  friendly  and  helpful  to  those 
about  her,  able  to  "  minister  to  body,  mind,  and  spirit."  l  To 
a  very  considerable  intellectual  faculty,  acute  rather  than  pro- 
found, she  added  that  dangerous  sensibility  to  enthusiasm 
which  easily  passes  into  fanatic  vagaries.  With  an  attractive 
personality,  and  no  small  amount  of  that  quality  which  our 
modern  phrase  calls  "personal  magnetism,"  she  exerted  a 
powerful  fascination  upon  others,  especially  upon  those  of 
her  own  sex,  who  looked  upon  her  as  a  natural  confidant. 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  307. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  189 

Clearly,  this  was  a  dangerous  addition  to  a  colony,  where  the 
will  of  the  minister  and  the  magistrate  affected  to  be  a  law 
to  every  one  for  both  action  and  thought. 

She  was  the  colonial  type  of  those  women  of  quick  religious 
sympathy  in  our  own  day,  who  gather  about  them  companies 
of  disciples.  She  began  with  quiet  gatherings  of  women  in 
her  own  house  for  religious  discourse,  and  early  fell  into  the 
habit  of  criticising  the  doctrine  of  the  ministers  in  their  Sun- 
day preaching  and  Thursday  lectures.  Her  comments  were 
sharp  and  accompanied  with  much  denunciation  of  the  minis- 
ters themselves.  There  is  no  need  to  revive  the  details  of 
the  controversy  thence  arising,  or  to  attempt  to  explain  the 
almost  unintelligible  jargon  of  much  of  the  discussion,  wherein 
distinctions  without  differences  were  multiplied  and  magnified 
into  absurd  importance.  The  main  doctrine  of  the  new 
prophetess  was  in  three  points :  1st,  that  the  covenant  of 
grace  had  entirely  superseded  the  covenant  of  works ;  2d, 
that  no  amount  of  sanctification  or  personal  holiness  could 
be  regarded  as  evidence  of  a  justified  condition  (hence  the 
name  Anti-nomian  applied  to  the  controversy)  ;  and  3d,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  personally  dwells  in  a  justified  soul.1  With 
these  sufficiently  startling  propositions,  as  criteria  for  judg- 
ment of  the  ministers  and  their  teachings,  she  set  aside  most 
of  their  preaching  and  declared  that  all  the  ministers,  except 
Cotton  and  Wheelwright,  were  still  under  the  covenant  of 
works  and  unconverted.  The  excitement  caused  by  this 
teaching  was  beyond  measure.  The  ministers  were  naturally 
indignant,  and  esteemed  that  in  their  persons  the  ark  of  God 
had  been  touched  with  profane  hands.  "  The  town  and 
country  were  distressed  by  these  subtleties,  and  every  man 
and  woman,  who  had  brains  enough  to  form  some  imperfect 
conception  of  them,  inferred  and  maintained  some  other 
point.  .  .  .  The  fear  of  God  and  love  of  our  neighbor  seemed 
to  be  laid  by  and  out  of  the  question."2 

1  Morton,  Memorial,  p.  133  ;  Massachusetts  Early  History,  p.  97. 

2  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  67. 


190  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Almost  the  entire  community  of  Boston  were  carried  away 
by  the  novelties.  John  Cotton  was  favorably  disposed 
toward  them,  though  he  did  not  come  out  decidedly  in  their 
favor ;  while  his  colleague  Wilson,  with  the  rest  of  the  minis- 
try, was  bitterly  opposed.  With  the  outraged  ministry  was 
ranged  the  great  majority  of  the  general  court,  who  them- 
selves had  been  pilloried  by  Mrs.  Hutchinson  as  not  in  the 
covenant  of  grace.  To  these  grave  guardians  of  the  state  it 
seemed  that  the  pillars  of  the  commonwealth  were  shaken, 
especially  when  some  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson's  feather-brained 
disciples  undertook  to  show  that  a  person  under  the  covenant 
of  grace  would  be  guilty  of  sin  in  obeying  the  orders  of  a 
magistrate  or  military  officer,  who  was  still  under  the  covenant 
of  works  !  Logically,  it  were  easy  to  prove  that  this  absurd- 
ity was  a  just  deduction  from  the  theocratic  principles  of  the 
magistracy,  but  they  could  neither  see  it  nor  allow  it. 

But  among  the  magistrates  themselves  Mrs.  Hutchinson 
had  some  powerful  adherents.  The  chief  military  personage 
of  the  colony,  Captain  Underbill,  was  on  her  side.  But  her 
greatest  disciple  was  the  governor,  Sir  Harry  Vane,  the 
younger. 

Vane.  Vane  was  one  of  the  noblest  characters  of  his  age,  though 

"  the  subject  of  widely  differing  judgments." l  Cromwell 
called  him  "  a  juggler  " ;  Clarendon,  "  a  man  of  extraordinary 
parts,  a  pleasant  wit,  a  great  understanding "  ;  Swift,  "  a 
dangerous,  enthusiastic  beast."  Hallam  describes  him  as, 
"  not  only  incorrupt,  but  disinterested,  inflexible  in  conform- 
ing his  public  conduct  to  his  principles,  and  averse  to  every 
sanguinary  and  oppressive  measure."  Milton  in  his  honor 
composed  one  of  his  finest  sonnets :  — 

"  Vane,  young  in  years,  but  in  sage  counsel  old, 
Than  whom  a  better  senator  ne'er  held 
The  helm  of  Rome." 

His  American  experience  was  a  short  and  disappointing 
episode  in  his  life.  Coming  to  New  England  shortly  after 

i  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  328. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  191 

the  arrival  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  his  youthful  ardor  was  soon 
captivated  by  her  religious  enthusiasm.  The  adhesion  of  so 
prominent  a  personage  to  her  views  served  to  add  to  the 
popularity  in  Boston,  which  his  personal  qualities  and  rank 
had  already  made  for  him,  and,  though  but  twenty-four  years 
of  age,  he  was  made  governor  at  the  election  of  1636. 

For  months  the  colony  lived  in  the  midst  of  an  ever  grow- 
ing excitement,  as  over  a  seething  volcano.  The  signal  for 
eruption  was  unintentionally  given  by  a  sermon  of  John 
Wheelwright,  the  brother-in-law  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  who  Wheel- 
had  followed  her  to  America.1  Though  a  zealous  advocate  wrlght- 
of  her  views,  he  was  far  removed  from  the  spirit  of  the  agi- 
tator. A  man  of  gentle  disposition,  nothing  could  have  been 
farther  from  his  thoughts  than  the  making  of  an  uproar. 
But  with  so  much  powder  on  every  side  there  needed  but 
a  small  spark  to  cause  an  explosion.  Judged  of  at  this  day 
the  sermon  seems  a  very  small  matter  indeed  to  create  so 
great  a  disturbance.  It  defended  the  new  views,  but  without 
acrimony,  and  criticised  some  of  the  public  conditions  under 
which  the  colony  was  established.  This  was  enough  for  the 
magistracy,  who  construed  Wheelwright  as  counselling  violent 
change  in  the  constitution,  and  at  once  arrested  him  on  a 
charge  of  sedition. 

On  this  the  steps  toward  eliminating  the  disturbers  of  the 
community  followed  rapidly  one  upon  another.     A  synod  of  Synod  of 
the  Church  was  called  to  give  ecclesiastical  judgment  on  the  l 
heresy.      This  body  met  at  Newtown  (Cambridge)  in  the 
spring  of  1637,  and  gravely  sat  itself  down  to  discuss  "eighty- 
two  erroneous  opinions  "  taken  from  the  teachings  of  Mrs. 
Hutchinson  and  her  brother.2     Full  liberty  of  discussion  was 
given,  with  the  curious  proviso  that  "  no  one  should  be  held 
responsible  for  the  opinions  he  defended  unless  he  acknowl- 
edged them  to   be  his  own."3     The  arch  heretic  and  her 

1  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  269. 

*  Ibid.,  I,  313. 

8  Wonder- Working  Providence  of  Ziori*s  Saviour, 


192 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Action  of 

general 

court. 


Remon- 
strance. 


brother  were  examined.  "  Inquisition  was  made  into  men's 
private  judgment,  as  well  as  into  their  declarations  and  prac- 
tices." Cotton  acknowledged  that  most  of  the  "opinions" 
were  erroneous,  but  could  not  condemn  all,  and  drew  upon 
himself  the  sharp  criticism  of  some  of  his  brethren.  The 
popular  pastor  of  the  Boston  Church  was  in  an  evil  case, 
with  the  vast  majority  of  his  parishioners  on  one  side  of  the 
fence,  and  that  of  the  ministers  and  magistrates  on  the  other. 
After  various  attempts  at  compromise  he,  according  to  his 
nature  and  manner,  got  himself  down  where  the  chief  power 
lay,  with  more  or  less  of  a  wrench  to  his  own  convic- 
tions.1 

The  synod  condemned  the  heretical  opinions  and  reported 
its  action  to  the  general  court.  That  body  met  shortly  after, 
in  May,  1637,  at  Newtown,  "  because  of  the  excitement  in 
Boston,"  and  proceeded  to  elect  a  governor,  putting  Win- 
throp  in  the  room  of  Vane  and  showing  to  the  latter  scant 
courtesy  in  any  attempts  he  made  at  defence  of  his  position 
and  conduct.  In  order  to  forestall  other  heretical  disturb- 
ances, the  court  prohibited  the  harboring  of  persons  whose 
religious  views  were  considered  dangerous.  The  bill  was 
opposed  by  Vane,  to  whom  Winthrop  replied,  "the  intent 
of  the  law  is  to  preserve  the  welfare  of  the  body."2  This 
law  extended  the  statute  of  1630,  which  prohibited  the  set- 
tling of  any  in  the  colony  without  leave  from  the  governor 
and  assistants.  It  is  evident  also  that  the  proposers  of  the 
law  were  providing  for  the  severity  of  sentence  already  de- 
signed toward  the  heretics  already  with  them. 

At  this  session  of  the  court  was  presented  a  "Remon- 
strance "  signed  by  sixty  citizens,  most  of  them  residents  of 
Boston  and  among  them  two  members  of  the  court  itself, 
William  Aspinwall  and  John  Coggeshall.  The  Remon- 
strance deprecated  the  action  of  the  synod  and  besought  the 
court  to  refrain  from  interference  with  Mrs.  Hutchinson  and 


1  Morton,  Memorial,  p.  133  ;  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  75. 

2  Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  268. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  193 

her  friends.  This  paper  roused  the  anger  of  the  court,  as  a 
"speaking  evil  of  dignities"  and  insubordination.  The  two 
deputies  were  expelled  from  their  seats  in  the  body,  and  the 
court  called  upon  all  the  signers  of  the  paper  to  acknowledge 
their  fault.  Ten  of  them  weakened  and  desired  leave  to 
withdraw  their  names,  while  the  balance  were  condemned  to 
be  disarmed  —  a  punishment  involving  at  that  day  no  little 
disgrace  and  conveying  the  utterly  unjustified  implication 
that  they  had  treasonable  intentions.1  One  individual  sen- 
tence dealt  with  Stephen  Greensmith,  "for  saying  that  all 
the  ministers  save  Wheelwright,  Cotton,  and  perhaps  Hooker 
did  teach  a  covenant  of  works."  He  was  condemned  to  a 
fine  of  £40,  to  give  £100  bond  for  good  behavior,  and  to 
acknowledge  his  fault  in  every  Church. 

At  the  November  session  of  the  general  court  final  action 
was  taken  against  the  leaders.  Though  a  strictly  civil 
body,  it  really  sat  as  having  ecclesiastical,  or  religious, 
function,  and  its  whole  process  against  Mrs.  Hutchinson 
and  her  brother  was  conditioned  upon  their  religious  opin- 
ions. Both  were  banished  from  the  colony.  Winthrop's  Banishment, 
language  is :  "  Finding  that  two  so  opposite  parties  could 
not  contain  in  the  same  body,  without  apparent  hazard  of 
ruin  to  the  whole,  it  was  agreed  to  send  away  some  of  the 
principal."2 

After  this  action  of  the  general   court,  Mrs.  Hutchinson 
was  summoned  to  answer  for  her  errors  to  the  Church,  of 
which  she  was  a  member.    There  also  the  decision  was  against 
her,  and  Cotton,  "  fully  persuaded  that  he  had  been  made 
her  stalking  horse,"  was  ordered  to  pronounce  the  censure!3  Church 
"  One  cannot   read  the  proceedings  without  feeling  that,  if  censure- 
only  the  scene  had  been  changed  to  an  ecclesiastical  court  in 

1  In  the  next  year,  with  the  Indian  war  concluded  and  a  large  immigration 
from  England,  the  court  restored  the  arms.     (Palfrey,  History  of  New  Eng- 
land, I,  249.) 

2  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  334  ;  Life  of  Winthrop,  I,  245. 
8  Barry,  Massachusetts,  I,  268. 


194  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

England,  the  whole  trial  would  have   formed  an  edifying 
chapter  in  Puritan  martyrology." 1 

So  the  colony  was  purged,  and  by  a  process  which  it  is 
impossible  to  defend ;  for  the  arguments  of  danger  to  the 
state,  which  threw  a  color  of  propriety  upon  the  action 
against  Williams,  cannot  here  find  force.  There  was  no 
danger  to  the  state  in  the  views  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson.  Given 
their  full  sway  they  would  have  made  a  purer  theocracy  than 
that  of  Winthrop  and  Wilson.  The  whole  proceeding  was 
due  to  religious  intolerance  and  to  the  rancor  of  the  minis- 
ters, whose  spiritual  character  had  been  aspersed. 

After  the  expulsion  of  the  heretics  the  court  was  able  for 

a  season  to  settle  down  to  other  matters,  as  says  the  gentle 

Shepherd  of  Newtown,  "  Thus  the  Lord  having  delivered  the 

colony  from  war  with  Indians  and  Familists  (who  arose  and 

fell  together),  He  was  pleased  to  direct  the  hearts  of  the 

H        ,        magistrates  (then  keeping  Court  orderly  in  our  town,  because 

College.         of  these  stirs  at  Boston)  to  think  of  a  College."  2 

1  Doyle,  Puritan  Colonies,  p.  183.     Wheelwright,  with  several  friends, 
removed  and  founded  the  town  of  Exeter.     Aspinwall,  who  was  banished  by 
the  court,  went  with  John  Clarke  and  William  Coddington  to  Rhode  Island, 
where  they  were  soon  joined  by  Mrs.  Hutchinson.     (Adams,  Emancipation 
of  Massachusetts,  pp.  77,  78.)     Her  son  and  son-in-law,  having  ventured  to 
expostulate  with  the  authorities  at  Boston  for  the  wrongs  inflicted  on  their 
mother,  were  thrown  into  prison  for  several  months.     (Bancroft,    United 
States,  I,  392.)     Vane  retired  from  New  England  in  disgust  and  went  home, 
there  to  do  yeoman's  service  for  liberty  and  at  last  to  die  for  her. 

2  Chronicles  of  Massachusetts,  p.  550;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,!. 
247.    It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  first  movement  toward  Harvard  College 
was  in  this  stir  of  religious  strife,  a  sure  token  of  the  desire  that  a  godly 
ministry  should  be  educated  in  the  way  of  Truth.     Says  the  Wonder-  Work- 
ing Providence  of  Zion's  Saviour,   "It  is  as  unnatural  for  a  right  New 
England  man  to  live  without  an  able  ministry,  as  for  a  smith  to  work  his 
iron  without  a  fire."     (Force,  Historical  Tracts.)     The  royal  commissioners 
of  1664  did  not  regard  the  infant  Harvard  with  so  much  complacency.    In 
their  report  to  the  king  they  wrote  (Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  112)  : 
"  At  Cambridge  they  have  a  wooden  colledg.  ...    It  may  be  feared  that  this 
colledg  may  afford  as  many  Schismaticks  to  ye  Church  and  the  Corpora- 
tion as  many  rebells  to  ye  King  as  formerly  they  have  done,  if  not  timely 
prevented." 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  195 

The  next  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  the  repressive  reli- 
gious functions  of  the  Massachusetts  magistrates  arose  within 
a  short  time  after  the  exile  of  the  Antinomians.  It  was  the 
affair  of  Gorton,  in  regard  to  whose  career  there  is  much  Gorton, 
confusion  of  statement  and  much  contradictory  representa- 
tion. The  record  is  not  clear  as  to  the  date  or  place  of 
Samuel  Gorton's  first  appearance  in  New  England.  Prob- 
ably he  was  in  Boston  at  the  time  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson's 
trial  and  exile.  As  though  to  avoid  similar  process  against 
himself,  he  departed  to  Plymouth,  where  he  was  found  void- 
ing his  peculiar  opinions  in  1638.  Morton  describes  him  as 
"  a  proud  and  pestilent  seducer,"  l  given  to  "  all  manner  of 
blasphemies,"  and  freely  expressing  himself  in  great  con- 
tempt for  both  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  order  of  the  colony. 
The  man  was  evidently  what  in  modern  parlance  would  be 
called  a  "crank,"  goaded  by  a  continual  spirit  of  unrest, 
prompting  him  to  assail  everything  which  failed  to  accord 
with  his  own  views. 

What  those  views  were  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  say,  be- 
yond the  statement  that  they  were  utterly  averse  to  the 
opinions  generally  obtaining  in  the  colonies.  His  writings 
are  filled  with  unintelligible  rant,  in  which  the  clearest  things 
seem  to  be  a  claim  of  inner  illumination  by  the  Spirit,  and 
condemnation  of  the  union  of  Church  and  State.  Withal,  he 
was  of  a  turbulent  disposition,  at  least  in  the  earlier  years  of 
his  American  life,  and  seemed  to  love  strife  for  strife's  sake.2 

It  is  quite  within  the  demands  of  justice  to  suppose  that 
the  action  of  the  Plymouth  and  Rhode  Island  authorities 
against  Gorton  were  for  civil  reasons,  a  fact  not  so  clear  in 
the  action  of  the  Massachusetts  magistrates.3  At  Plymouth 
his  lack  of  reverence  for  all  constituted  authorities  exposed 
him  to  the  complaint  of  Ralph  Smith,  that  he  "carried  on 

1  Memorial,  p.  135. 

2  Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  262 ;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  Eng- 
land, I,  304. 

«  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  392,  403,  453. 


196  BISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

mutinously  and  seditiously."  On  this  complaint  he  was  tried 
by  the  court,  and  sentenced  to  fine  and  to  banishment  within 
fourteen  days.  Going  to  Rhode  Island,  he  very  soon  made 
himself  obnoxious  by  his  opposition  to  the  authorities,  tow- 
ard whom  he  used  uncivil  language  so  offensive  that  the 
court  felt  compelled  to  repress  it.  Before  the  court  he  denied 
its  authority.  "  The  Governor,  Mr.  Coddington,  saying  in 
court,  '  You  that  are  for  the  King,  lay  hold  on  Gorton '  ;  he 
on  the  other  side  cried  out,  '  All  you  that  are  for  the  King, 
lay  hold  on  Coddington,'  —  whereupon  he  was  banished  the 
Island."1  It  is  not  quite  certain  that  the  Rhode  Island 
people  whipped  or  imprisoned  him.  Certainly,  they  expelled 
him  for  disorderly  conduct. 

Thence  he  went  to  Providence  Plantations  and  was  re- 
ceived by  Williams  and  permitted  to  remain,  though  the 
latter  had  no  sympathy  with  his  restless  disposition  and  im- 
practicable caprices.  He  was  allowed  to  settle  near  Provi- 
dence, but  seems  to  have  given  some  trouble  to  Williams  and 
his  colony  by  unjust  treatment  of  the  neighboring  Indians.2 
The  lands  on  which  he  had  settled  were  claimed  by  the 
Massachusetts  government,  which,  because  of  complaint  by 
the  Indians,  summoned  Gorton  to  answer  to  the  court  at 
Boston.  To  this  summons  he  returned  a  contemptuous  re- 
fusal to  appear ;  3  whereupon  the  authorities  forcibly  arrested 
him  and  conveyed  him  to  Boston.  Here  he  was  brought  to 
trial  on  "  twenty -six  blasphemous  particulars  "  obtained  from 
his  writings,  adjudged  guilty,  and  thrown  into  prison.  Barry 
says  that  the  ministers  were  for  death,  but  the  magistrates 
dissented.4  Gorton  himself  states  that  he  barely  escaped 

1  Massachusetts   Historical   Collections,  III,  3  ;  96 ;  Barry,   History  of 
Massachusetts,  I,  264. 

2  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  457. 

8  The  Wonder- Working  Providence  of  Zion's  Saviour  says:  "Samuel 
Gorton,  being  the  ring-leader  of  the  rout,  was  so  full  gorged  with  dreadful 
and  damnable  errors,  that  soon  after  the  departure  of  the  messenger,  he  layes 
aside  all  civil  justice  and,  instead  of  returning  answer  to  the  matter  in  hand, 
he  vomits  up  a  whole  paper  full  of  beastly  Stuff." 

*  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  265. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  197 

death.  Twenty-six  years  afterward  he  sent  a  petition  to  the 
court  of  commissioners  in  England,  in  which  he  describes  the 
treatment  he  had  received.  The  years  had  not  dulled  his 
sense  of  wrong.  "  They  took  offence,"  he  wrote,  "  that  we 
could  not  close  with  them  in  their  Church  orders,  neither 
could  we  approve  of  their  civil  course  in  divers  respects.  .  .  . 
They  preached  us  in  their  pulpits  as  gross  heretics,  and  men 
not  worthy  to  live  upon  the  earth.  .  .  .  They  tried  us  upon 
life  and  death  —  had  resolved  upon  our  death,  in  case  we 
would  not  falsify  our  faith  to  God  and  the  King.  .  .  .  They 
put  it  to  the  major  vote  whether  your  petitioners  should  live 
or  die,  our  lives  escaping  by  two  votes."  1 

However  disorderly  Gorton  may  have  been,  his  trial  and 
sentence  were  for  charges  of  irreligion,  though  the  modern 
reader  would  find  it  hard  to  gather  "  blasphemous  particu- 
lars "  from  the  unmeaning  jargon  of  his  hysterical  writings. 
Gorton,  in  a  letter  to  Morton,  whose  Memorial  was  published 
before  the  former's  death,  solemnly  denies  the  charge  of 
blasphemy.  "  I  appeal  to  God,  the  Judge  of  all  secrets,  that 
there  was  never  such  a  thought  in  my  heart."2 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  man  was  scandalously  and 
cruelly  abused.  The  treatment  was  only  possible  by  an 
authority  which  regarded  departure  from  the  established  re- 
ligious order  as  sedition  against  the  state.  That  Gorton 
either  was  grossly  misunderstood  at  the  first,  or  sobered  by 
his  afflictions  became  afterward  worthy  of  public  confidence 
and  respect,  seems  abundantly  proved  by  Judge  Eddy,  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  Rhode  Island,  who  wrote,  "  I  have  read  the 
records  of  the  colony  from  the  beginning  until  after  the  death 
of  Gorton,  and  I  find  that  he  was  almost  constantly  in  office, 
and  not  an  instance  of  reproach  is  recorded  against  him."3 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  8  ;  68. 

2  Memorial,  p.  138  ;  Felt,  I,  463. 

3  It  was  against  Gorton  that  Winslow  wrote  his  Hypocracie  Unmasked, 
already  referred  to,  in  reply  to  Gorton's  pamphlet  "  Simplicitie's  Defence 
against  Seven-Headed  Policy." 


198  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The   next  important  spasm  and  outputting  of  theocratic 
intolerance  is  found  in  the  action  against  what  is  called  the 
"Presbyte-    "Presbyterian  Cabal."     This   name  is   something  of  a  mis- 
nan  Cabal."  nomer5  for  the  movers  of  it  were  not  specially  concerned  for 
Presbytery,  but  for  general  liberty  of  religion  and  for  citizen- 
ship without  regard  to  religious  faith.     The  name  seems  to 
have  arisen  from  a  supposition  of  sympathy  with  the  move- 
ment in  the  parliament  of  the  day,  which  was  predominantly 
Presbyterian.     So  far  as  we   can  gather,  the  ecclesiastical 
preferences  of  the  cabal  were  rather  with  Episcopacy. 

In  1646,  Dr.  Robert  Child,  Samuel  Maverick,  William 
Vassal,  Thomas  Fowle,  and  three  others  petitioned  the  gen- 
eral courts  of  Plymouth l  and  Massachusetts  for  religious 
freedom  and  a  redress  of  grievances.  Rev.  Peter  Hubbard  of 
Hingham,  a  Presbyterian,  was  either  one  of  the  petitioners 
or  in  open  sympathy  with  them.  The  petition  complained 
of  several  onerous  conditions  :  2  that  the  fundamental  laws  of 
England  were  not  allowed  in  the  colony ;  that  non-members 
of  the  colonial  Churches  were  denied  civil  rights  and  privi- 
leges, though  freeborn  Englishmen;  and  that  many  sober, 
righteous,  and  godly  persons,  members  of  Churches  in  Eng- 
land, were  debarred  from  Christian  privileges.  The  relief 
prayed  for  was  that  the  court  should,  1st,  establish  the  com- 
mon law  of  England ;  2d,  open  the  franchise  to  all  English- 
men, who  "were  quiet,  peaceable,  and  forward  with  heart, 
hand,  and  purse,  to  promote  the  public  good";  and  3d, 
"  allow  divers  sober,  righteous,  and  godly  men,  members  of 
the  Church  of  England,  to  be  taken  into  your  congregations 
and  to  enjoy  with  you  all  the  liberties  and  ordinances  Christ 
hath  purchased  ;  "  or  else  to  have  liberty  to  form  Churches  of 
their  own.  The  petition  concluded  with  the  statement  that, 

ip.140. 

2  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  145  ;  Hutchinson,  Collec- 
tions, pp.  188-196  ;  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II.  4  ;  107  ;  Pal- 
frey, History  of  New  England,  I,  325  ;  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New 
England,  I,  674. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  199 

if  its  prayers  should  be  granted,  "  we  hope  to  see  the  now 
contemned  ordinances  of  God  highly  prized ;  the  gospel, 
much  darkened,  break  forth  as  the  sun  at  noon-day;  and 
Christian  Charity  and  brotherly  love,  almost  frozen,  wax 
warm." 

The  petitioners  had  demanded  relief  from  taxes,  in  case  the 
court  should  refuse  these  requests,  and  threatened  an  appeal 
to  England.  The  general  court  of  Massachusetts  was  greatly 
offended  and  cited  the  petitioners  to  appear  before  it,  as 
"  not  accused  for  petitioning,  but  for  contemptuous  and  sedi- 
tious expressions."  Thus,  again,  non-conformity  was  sedition, 
subversive  of  both  Church  and  State.  The  petition  was 
refused  by  the  court,  with  the  somewhat  contemptuous  lan- 
guage :  "  These  remonstrants  would  be  thought  to  be  a 
representative  part  of  all  the  non-freemen  of  the  country; 
but  when  we  have  pulled  off  their  vizards,  we  find  them  no 
other  than  Robert  Child,  Thomas  Fowle,  etc."  It  was  inti- 
mated to  the  petitioners  that,  if  they  would  apologize,  their 
offence  would  be  forgiven.  This  they  refused  to  do,  and 
they  were  fined,  Mr.  Hubbard  being  mulcted  in  the  sum 
of  £20. 

Some  of  them  resolved  to  go  to  England  with  their  com- 
plaint, a  statement  of  which  was  drawn  up  and  signed  by 
twenty-five  men,  non-freemen.  The  paper  was  seized  by  the 
court  and  its  signers  were  fined,  on  the  ground  that  no 
appeal  could  be  taken  to  England  from  the  action  of  the 
Massachusetts  authority. 

A  statement  of  the  trouble,  however,  did  reach  England 
in  the  form  of  a  pamphlet  with  the  fantastic  title,  "  New  Eng- 
land's  Jonas  Cast-Up  at  London"  (1647). 1  The  pamphlet 
represented  the  Petition  as  the  Jonas,  too  heavy  for  the  New 
England  stomach,  now  cast  up  at  London.  It  related  the 
story  of  the  petition  from  the  standpoint  of  Child  and  his 
party,  and  submitted  some  Queries  for  an  English  answer; 
whether  all  English  inhabitants  of  the  colony,  having  lands, 

*  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  IV. 


200  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

are  not  freemen;  and  whether  the  petitioners  ought  to  be 
hindered  from  "  settling  in  a  Church  way  "  according  to  the 
Churches  in  England.  To  invite  the  sympathy  of  the  pow- 
ers at  home,  there  is  a  biting  allusion  to  "  a  book  lately 
set  forth  by  Edward  Winslow  against  Samuel  Gorton,  intit- 
uled '  Hypocrasie  Unmasked,  in  which  there  is  a  deep  and 
subtle  plot  against  the  Laws  of  England  and  Liberties  of 
English  Subjects,  and  the  Gentlemen  who  are  now  suffering 
in  England." 

Winslow  was  himself  in  England,  as  agent  for  Plymouth, 
at  the  time  the  pamphlet  was  there  published,  and  the  fact 
that  the  English  authorities  abstained  from  any  interference 
in  the  matter  is  attributed  by  Hutchinson  to  his  prudence 
and  influence. 

The  happy  (?)  conclusion  of  this  Cabal  was  probably  the 
occasion  for  a  congratulatory  letter  of  Symonds  to  Win- 
throp.  Asking,  "  What  seems  to  be  God's  end  in  bringing 
His  people  here  ?  "  he  furnishes  the  answer :  "  1st,  To  be  an 
occasion  to  stir  up  the  two  nations  to  set  upon  reformation 
of  religion ;  2d,  To  have  liberty  and  power  to  set  up  God's 
own  ordinances  in  Church  government,  and  thereby  to  hold 
forth  matter  of  conviction  to  the  Episcopacy  and  others,  that 
this  way  of  Church  government  and  civil  government  may 
stand  together."  * 

The  allegation  that  the  ulterior  design  of  Child  and  his 
associates  was  political,  looking  to  the  overthrow  of  the  co- 
lonial government,  is  quite  unsupported  by  evidence.  The 
relief  asked  for  by  them,  if  granted,  would  have  undoubtedly 
wrought  an  essential  change,  but  it  was  a  change  sought  at 
the  hands  of  the  authorities  themselves,  and  would  have 
involved  no  more  of  revolution  than  obtains  in  any  case  of 
reform  conceded  by  the  governing  authority.  Nor  can  the 
charge  lie  on  the  ground  of  the  appeal  to  England,  for  such 
appeal  was  felt  to  be  the  natural  right  of  Englishmen ;  and 
had  occasion  to  resort  thereto  arisen  for  the  men  who  con- 

1  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  220. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  201 

demned  Child  and  Maverick,  none  would  have  been  quicker 
than  they  to  avail  themselves  of  its  hope  of  relief. 

The  immediate  consequence  of  the  cabal  was  the  calling  of 
the  second  synod  of  the  Churches.  To  the  theocratic  mind,  Cambridge 
alarmed  by  this  attempt  to  modify  the  sacred  institution  of  an  synod> 
ecclesiastical  commonwealth,  there  appeared  a  necessity  for 
strengthening  its  defences ;  and  for  this  purpose  the  general 
court  issued  a  call  for  the  synod.  Curiously  enough,  and 
most  inconsistently  with  their  avowed  principles,  some  of  the 
ministers  and  Churches  took  umbrage  at  this  action,  as  some- 
thing which  the  court  had  not  the  authority  to  do.1  The 
dissatisfaction  was  specially  expressed  in  Boston,  where 
"about  thirty  or  forty  of  the  members  excepted  that  the 
Churches  had  a  right  to  meet  in  synod  without  the  interven- 
tion of  the  magistrates." 

The  court,  anxious  for  the  synodical  meeting,  in  order  to 
allay  the  jealousy  in  some  of  the  Churches,  offered  a  compro- 
mise, directing  that  "the  call  should  be  drawn  up  in  the 
form  of  a  motion  and  not  of  command."  Avoiding  decision 
as  to  the  right  of  the  churches  to  meet  in  synod  without  the 
magistrates'  permission,  the  court  resolved :  "  Although  this 
Court  makes  no  question  of  their  lawful  power  by  the 
word  of  God  to  assemble  the  Churches,  upon  occasion  of 
counsel  for  anything  which  may  concern  the  practice  of  the 
Churches  ...  (it  is)  thought  expedient  on  the  present  occa- 
sion not  to  make  use  of  that  power,  but  hereby  rather  declare 
it  to  be  the  desire  of  the  General  Court."  This  deliverance 
satisfied  all  but  the  Boston  Churches,  which,  however,  were 
persuaded  by  Mr.  Norton  to  send  delegates. 

The  synod  met  at  Cambridge,  June,  1647,  but  after  a  few 
days  adjourned  on  account  of  an  epidemic,  and  did  not  re- 
assemble until  August  of  the  next  year.  Then,  during  a 
session  of  fourteen  days,  the  synod  adopted  the  Westmin- 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  1 ;  196 ;  Ellis,  Puritan  Age, 
pp.  217-221 ;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  329 ;  Felt,  Ecclesiastical 
History  of  New  England,  I,  570  ;  II,  5. 


202  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  settled  the  scheme  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline,  according  to  a  Congregational  model,  in 
the  famous  "  Cambridge  Platform."  This  action  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  general  court  for  approval,  which  body  referred 
it,  in  1649,  to  the  Churches  for  their  opinions.  The  Churches 
fully  approved  and  so  reported  to  the  general  court,  where- 
upon the  court  by  act  of  1651  formally  ratified  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  synod,  and  enacted  them  into  law  for  the  Churches 
of  Massachusetts. 

The  various  steps  in  this  process  deserve  notice  as  illus- 
trating the  constitution  of  Church  and  State.  By  it  the 
civil  legislature  appears  as  the  highest  authority  in  the 
Church.  The  synod  put  the  finishing  touches  to  the  ecclesi- 
astical structure.  By  formal  statute  Congregationalism  became 
Law,  and  any  attempt  to  institute  another  form  of  worship 
became  a  punishable  offence. 

In  the  spirit  of  this  constitution  the  minuter  history  of  the 
period  shows  the  general  court  interfering  with  the  business 
of  the  Churches  on  any  pretext,  of  which  a  few  instances 
may  be  noted. 

Civil  inter-  It  appears  that,  while  some  non-members  of  Churches  were 
ferences.  aggrieved  that  they  were  denied  the  franchise,  there  were 
some  Church-members  not  alive  to  their  privileges  as  such, 
who,  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  public  service,  neglected  to 
be  made  freemen.  To  meet  the  latter  situation,  the  general 
court,  1643,1  ordered  the  Churches  to  deal  by  way  of  disci- 
pline with  such  of  their  members  as  refuse  to  take  their  free- 
dom. In  1650  the  Second  Church  of  Boston  called  Michael 
Powell  to  its  pastorate.  Powell  had  been  a  tavern-keeper  in 
Dedham,  and  a  member  of  the  general  court.  In  1648  he 
removed  to  Boston,  where  he  became  noted  for  a  "  gift  in 
prayer  and  exhortation."  The  court  forbade  his  installation 
on  the  ground  that,  while  he  might  be  a  ruling  elder,  he  was 
unfit  to  be  pastor,  because  "  lacking  in  such  abilities,  learn- 
ing, and  qualifications  as  are  requisite  and  necessary  for  an 

1  Record,  II,  38 ;  Puritan  Age,  p.  214. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  203 

able  ministry  of  the  people."  To  this  action  both  Powell 
and  the  Church  submitted  without  remonstrance.1  Indeed, 
the  docile  spirit  of  Powell  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  occu- 
pied by  a  fear  lest  the  authorities  might  think  him  capable  of 
insubordination.  The  imperative  tone  assumed  by  them 
moves  him  to  reply :  "  My  humble  request  is  that  you  would 
not  have  such  hard  thoughts  of  me,  that  I  would  consent 
to  be  ordained  without  your  concurrence."  2 

After  the  death  of  Cotton  in  1652  the  First  Church  of 
Boston  called  John  Norton  of  Ipswich,  whom  the  Ipswich 
people  were  unwilling  to  release.  Hence  arose  a  sharp  con. 
tention  between  the  two  Churches,  with  which  the  general 
court  interfered.  On  its  own  motion,  the  court  called  a 
council  of  elders  and  two  messengers  from  each  of  twelve 
towns,  and  paid  all  expenses  out  of  the  public  treasury.3 
Again,  in  1663,  on  the  death  of  Norton,  the  Boston  Church 
called  the  celebrated  John  Owen  of  England,  and  the  court 
sent  an  official  letter  to  Owen  urging  his  acceptance.4 

The  purity  of  doctrine  also,  as  well  as  the  order  of  the 
Churches,  engaged  the  attention  of  the  general  court.  In 
1650  they  summoned  William  Pynchon,  a  magistrate  of 
Springfield,  to  answer  for  a  book  written  by  him  on  the 
atonement.5  So  serious  did  they  consider  the  matter  that 
they  sent  to  England  a  "  Declaration  and  Protestation,"  as- 
serting that  they  were  no  party  to  the  book,  but  "  on  the 
contrary,  we  detest  and  abhor  many  of  the  opinions  and  as- 
sertions therein  as  false,  erroneous,  and  heretical."  The 
court  ordered  that  the  book  be  burned  in  the  market-place 
by  the  hangman,  after  the  next  Thursday's  lecture,  and 
appointed  Mr.  Norton  to  prepare  an  answer  and  refutation, 
for  which  service  he  was  voted  £20.  Pynchon's  reply  to 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  220. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  III,  1 ;  45. 
8  Puritan  Age,  pp.  223,  263. 

*  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  II,  101. 

6  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  20,  43. 


204  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  summons  was  so  explanatory  that  the  court  in  May,  1651, 
"having  hopes,"  allowed  him  to  return  home,  taking  Nor- 
ton's answer  "to  consider  thereof."  In  the  following  Octo- 
ber the  court  was  not  satisfied,  and  put  Pynchon  under  bonds 
of  ,£100  to  appear  the  next  May.  Tired  and  disgusted  by 
the  persecution,  Pynchon  returned  to  England.1 

In  1651  the  court  summoned  Rev.  Marmaduke  Matthews 
of  Maiden,  whom  in  the  preceding  year  they  had  fined  .£10 
for  preaching  in  an  "  unauthorized  "  congregation,  to  answer 
to  the  charge  of  "preaching  divers  erroneous,  unsound,  and 
unsafe  opinions."  In  the  trial  a  certain  Thomas  Line,  a 
member  of  the  Maiden  Church,  testified  against  Matthews, 
and  for  this  testimony  the  Church  proceeded  to  discipline 
him.  Thereupon  the  general  court  interfered  and  forbade 
the  process,  bearing  "witness  with  what  tenderness  and 
caution  he  gave  his  aforesaid  testimony,"  and  advising  the 
Church  to  call  a  council  to  "  consider  the  matter."  2 

The  case  of  President  Dunster  of  Harvard  is  another 
interesting  illustration.  Mr.  Dunster  had  become  a  Baptist, 
and  on  this  account  the  general  court,  in  1654,  called  on  the 
officers  of  the  College  "  not  to  continue  in  office  any  teacher 
unsound  in  the  faith."  In  1657  Mr.  Dunster  was  summoned 
by  the  court  to  answer  for  not  having  his  own  child  baptized.3 

The  next  notorious  act  of  persecution,  after  Gorton's  ex- 
Clarke  and  perience,  is  noted  in  the  treatment  inflicted  on  Clarke  and 
Holmes.  Holmes,  at  Lynn.  John  Clarke  was  a  friend  of  Mrs.  Hutchin- 
son  and  went  with  Coddington  to  Rhode  Island.  There  he 
became  a  Baptist  and  the  pastor  of  the  Church  at  Newport. 
Obadiah  Holmes  was  originally  of  Salem,  but  was  thence 
dismissed  to  the  Congregational  Church  at  Seekonk  in  the 

1  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  224. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  8  ;  325. 

8  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  pp.  397,  402.  Ellis  relates  that  Dunster  was  prose- 
cuted for  rising  in  the  Church  and  protesting  against  the  baptism  of  a  child 
brought  in  for  that  ordinance.  But  this  cannot  be  cited  against  the  estab- 
lishment. Such  conduct  could  be  punished  to-day  as  disorderly  disturbance 
of  religious  service. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  205 

Plymouth  jurisdiction.  Coming  into  contact  with  Clarke, 
he  was  influenced  to  Baptist  views  and  was  baptized  at  New- 
port. Returning  to  Seekonk,  he  set  up  there  a  Baptist 
Church.1 

In  1651  Clarke  and  Holmes  went  to  Lynn,  where  dwelt 
certain  sympathizers  in  their  Baptist  opinions,  and  held  reli- 
gious services  in  a  private  house.  For  this  they  were 
arrested,  taken  before  the  magistrates,  and  compelled  to 
"go  to  meeting."  There  Clarke  requested  permission  to 
speak  and,  being  allowed  the  privilege,  said :  "  As  strangers 
to  each  other's  inward  standing  in  respect  to  God,  we  cannot 
conjoyn  act  in  faith,  and  I  could  not  judge  that  you  are 
gathered  together  and  walk  according  to  the  visible  order  of 
our  Lord."  Here  he  was  stopped  by  the  magistrates.  Both 
were  sent  to  Boston  and  thrown  into  prison.  On  trial  they 
were  sentenced  to  a  fine  of  £20  each  ;  to  remain  in  prison 
until  the  fine  was  paid,  or  "  to  be  well  whipt."  Clarke  paid 
his  fine  and  was  released;  but  Holmes  refused  and  was 
"  whipped  unmercifully."  "  A  sword  of  steel,"  said  Clarke, 
"  cannot  come  near  or  touch  the  spirit  or  mind  of  man."2 

The  tidings  of  the  harsh  treatment  of  these  men  were  soon 
carried  to  England,  where  they  created  no  small  amount  of 
criticism  and  disgust.  Clarke  himself  took  care  that  the  story 
should  be  exploited  in  a  pamphlet  printed  in  1652,  entitled 
"  Ill-Newes  from  New  England.  A  Narrative  of  New  Eng- 
land's Persecution:  wherein  is  declared,  That,  while  Old 

1  There  must  have  been  a  number  of  Baptists  already  in  the  place,  as  in 
1649  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Plymouth 
court,   complaining  that  "some  sectaries"  had  been  allowed  to  settle  at 
Seekonk,  and  praying  for  unity  of  action  in  the  two  colonies.     On  the  start- 
ing of  the  new  Church,  1650,  Holmes  was  cited  by  the  general  court  of 
Plymouth,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  any  further  action  against  him  was 
taken;  and  Massachusetts  was  "grieved  by  the  slight  response  from  Ply- 
mouth."    (Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  382;  Felt,  Ecclesiastical 
History  of  New  England,  II,  48,  72,  79  ;  Adams,  Emancipation  of  Massachu- 
setts, p.  105  et  seg.) 

2  Bancroft,  History  of  the   United  States,  I,  449 ;  Ellis,  Puritan  Age, 
pp.  387,  390. 


206  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

England  is  becoming  New,  New  England  is  becoming  Old" 
The  title  was  suggested  by  the  anonymous  "  Grood  Newes 
from  New  England  "  (London,  1648),  abounding  in  fulsome 
praise  of  the  colonial  constitution  and  referring  to  Clarke 
and  his  Rhode  Island  friends  in  contemptuous  terms.1 

This  persecution  of  Clarke  and  Holmes  drew  from  Sir 
Saitonstaii's  Richard  Saltonstall  the  famous  letter  to  Cotton  and  Wilson 
letter.  ^Q  whicn  krief  reference  has  been  made.  "  It  doth  not  a  little 

grieve  my  spirit,"  he  wrote,  "to  hear  that  you  fine,  whip, 
and  imprison  men  for  their  conscience.  .  .  .  We  hoped  the 
Lord  would  have  given  you  so  much  light  and  love  there 
that  you  might  have  been  eyes  to  God's  people  here,  and  not 
to  practice  those  courses  in  a  wilderness,  which  you  went  so 
far  to  prevent.  These  rigid  ways  have  laid  you  very  low 
in  the  hearts  of  the  saints.  I  do  assure  you  that  I  have 
heard  them  pray  in  the  public  assemblies  that  the  Lord  would 
give  you  meek  and  humble  spirits,  not  to  strive  so  much  for 
uniformity,  as  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  faith  in  the  bond  of 
peace.  When  I  was  in  Holland  .  .  .  some  Christians  there  .  .  . 
desired  me  to  write  to  the  governor  to  know  if  those  who 
differ  from  you  in  opinion  .  .  .  might  be  permitted  to  live 
among  you ;  to  which  I  received  this  short  answer  from  your 
then  governor,  Mr.  Dudley, '  God  forbid  that  our  love  for  the 
truth  should  be  grown  so  cold  that  we  should  tolerate  error.' 
...  I  hope  you  do  not  assume  to  yourselves  infallibility  of 
judgment,  when  the  most  learned  of  the  apostles  confessed 
that  he  knew  but  in  part  and  saw  but  darkly  as  through  a 
glass;  for  God  is  light,  and  no  further  than  He  doth  illumine 
us  can  we  see,  be  our  parts  and  learning  never  so  great."  2 
Cotton's  The  reply  of  Cotton  and  Wilson  to  this  noble  letter  was 

reply.  in  painful  contrast  to  its  dignity  and  spiritual  insight.     Of 

Clarke  and  Holmes  they  say:  "  The  imprisonment  of  either 
of  them  was  no  detriment.  I  believed  they  fared  neither  of 
them  better  at  home,  and  I  am  sure  that  Holmes  had  not 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  2 ;  1,  195. 

2  Hutchinson,  Collections,  pp.  401-404. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  207 

been  so  well  clad  of  many  years  before.  .  .  .  Do  you  think 
that  God  hath  crowned  the  State  with  so  many  victories,  that 
they  should  (suffer)  so  many  miscreants  to  pluck  the  crown 
of  sovereignty  from  Christ's  head  ?  .  .  .  and  so  leave  Christ 
no  visible  kingdom  upon  earth  ?  .  .  .  We  believe  there  is  a 
vast  difference  between  men's  inventions  and  God's  instances. 
We  fled  from  men's  inventions,  to  which  we  should  else  have 
been  compelled.  We  compel  none  to  men's  inventions.  If 
our  ways  (rigid  ways,  as  you  call  them)  have  laid  us  low  in 
the  hearts  of  God's  people,  yea  and  of  the  saints  (as  you 
stile  them),  we  do  not  believe  it  is  any  part  of  their  Saint- 
ship."  This,  considering  all  the  attendant  circumstances, 
is  about  the  most  lamentable  expression  of  Puritan  bigotry 
which  the  records  preserve  to  us. 

In  the  decades  between  1640  and  1660  there  was  at  once  a 
growing  discontent  among  the  people  with  the  repressive  Discontent, 
spirit  of  the  theocracy,  and  also  an  increasing  bitterness  of 
intolerance  on  the  part  of  the  ministers  and  authorities.  In 
the  eyes  of  those  in  power  any  form  of  dissent  became  more 
and  more  dangerous  and  disloyal,  and  they  grew  the  more  out- 
spoken in  denunciation  as  the  mutterings  of  discontent  became 
frequent  and  loud.  Norton  declared  that  variety  was  fatal  to 
religion.1  "Religion,"  he  said  with  emphasis,  "admits  of  no 
eccentric  notions."  Ward's  "  Simple  Oobler  of  Aggawam  in 
America  "  2  was  published  in  1647.  Besides  the  two  or  three 
quotations  already  made  from  its  pages,  the  following  may 
serve  further  to  illustrate  the  ruling  spirit  of  the  day: 
"  God  doth  nowhere  in  His  word  tolerate  Christian  States  to 
give  Tolerations  to  adversaries  of  His  Truth,  if  they  have 
power  in  their  hands  to  prevent  them.  .  .  .  Here  is  lately 
brought  us  a  Magna  Charta,  whereof  the  first  Article  of  Con- 
stitution firmly  provides  free  stable-room  and  litter  for  all 
kinds  of  Consciences,  be  they  never  so  dirty  or  jadish.  .  .  . 
My  heart  hath  naturally  detested  Tolerations  of  divers 

1  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  449. 

2  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III. 


208 


EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


The  com- 
monwealth. 


More    \ 
repression. 


Religions  or  of  one  Religion  in  segregant  shapes.  He  that 
unwillingly  assents  to  it,  if  he  examines  his  heart  by  daylight, 
his  Conscience  will  tell  him  he  is  either  an  Atheist,  or  an 
Heretick,  or  an  Hypocrite,  or  at  best  a  captive  to  some 
Lust."  i 

The  success  of  the  people  and  parliament  in  England  in 
their  struggle  with  the  king  could  not  fail  to  reflect  itself  in 
the  minds  of  many  in  the  colony,  where  it  was  felt  that,  as 
inhabitants  they  were  deprived  of  some  of  the  rights  of  free- 
born  Englishmen,  and  in  the  matter  of  religion  they  suffered 
under  a  law  of  uniformity  no  less  rigid  than  that,  which  in 
England  the  parliamentary  triumph  had  set  aside.  In  point 
of  religion  it  was  felt  that  England  was  now  far  more  free  than 
Massachusetts,  and  the  malcontents  were  dissatisfied  that  in 
New  England  they  should  suffer  more  restriction  than  they 
would  at  home. 

Hence  there  was  a  continual  outcropping  of  trouble  for 
the  theocratic  rulers.  The  suppression  of  Williams,  Mrs. 
Hutchinson,  Gorton,  Child,  and  Clarke  did  not  bring  the 
hoped-for  relief;  while  the  denial  of  suffrage  to  all  non- 
members  of  churches  was  creating  a  dangerous  feeling  in  the 
community,  where  in  1660  the  unenfranchised  population 
was  in  a  large  majority. 

Against  tolerance  of  divergent  religious  teaching,  and  to 
prevent  the  incoming  of  foreign  unapproved  preachers,  such 
as  Clarke,  the  general  court,  in  1653,  enacted  "  that  no  person 
within  this  jurisdiction  shall  undertake  any  constant  course 
of  public  preaching  or  propagating,  without  the  approbation 
of  the  elders  of  four  the  next  Churches,  or  of  the  County 
Court."  It  was  also  declared  that  any  person  maintaining 
any  heterodox  or  erroneous  doctrine  should  be  questioned 
and  censured  by  the  county  court.  Against  this  legislation 
a  protest  was  made  to  the  next  session  of  the  general  court 
by  the  Church  and  town  of  Woburn.  This  was  altogether 

1  It  is  amusing  to  observe  how  these  men  all  wrote  Conscience  with  a  big 
C,  as  though  of  honor,  and  never  scrupled  about  denying  its  rights. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  209 

a  new  thing,  and  might  well  have  been  considered  as  a  hand- 
writing on  the  wall.1 

In  1659  the  general  court  gave  legal  expression  to  the  deep 
Puritan  horror  of  all  things  savoring  of  popery,  by  making  Popery  and 
the  observance  of  Christmas  a  punishable  offence.  The  first  Christmas- 
generation  of  colonists  were  all  of  one  mind  as  to  the  iniquity 
of  such  observance,  and  no  legislation  was  needed.  But 
thirty  years  had  seen  no  small  change  in  the  popular  mind. 
A  process  was  going  on  which  the  more  godly  viewed  as  a 
fearful  degeneration  of  morals.  The  writings  of  the  Mathers 
and  others  of  the  day  abound  in  lamentation  over  the  growing 
"godlessness"  of  the  community.  One  of  its  indications  was 
the  disposition  "  to  keep  Christmas,"  and  hence  the  action  of 
the  legislature.2 

In  1665  the  king,  Charles  II.,  demanded  the  repeal  of  this 
law,  but  it  was  not  repealed  until  1681.  This  repeal,  how- 
ever, did  not  commend  the  day  to  the  more  pious  New 
England  mind,  and  men,  now  (1902)  not  much  beyond 
middle  life,  can  remember  a  childhood  to  which  the  festivity 
of  Christmas  was  forbidden. 

To   the   leaders  of   Massachusetts   policy  it  seems   never 
to   have   suggested  itself,  that  the  so-called  "relaxation  of  Moral 
morals  "  was  the  natural  reaction  from  the  austere  and  rigid    axity> 
system,  which  they  had  founded  and  were  seeking  to  main- 
tain as  the  ark  of  God.     We  are  not,  indeed,  to  understand 
the  lamentations  about  prevalent  ungodliness  as  importing 
the  same  moral   condition   as   such  plaints  would   suggest 

1  There  have  already  been  noted  certain  laws  of  this  period,  against 
Heresy,  Contempt  of  the  Word,  or  of  Ministers,  Neglect  of  Worship,  and  for 
Providing  a  Godly  Ministry.     See  pp.  176,  177. 

2  This  horror  of  the  great  Feast-Day  of  the  Church  was  long-lived.     That 
solemn  and  intolerable  prig,  Samuel  Sewall,  whose  soul  the  wearing  of  wigs 
oppressed  like  a  nightmare,  tells  in  his  Diary  of  spending  a  Christmas  in  the 
family  burial  vault,  arranging  the  positions  of  the  coffins  therein,  and  de- 
scribed it  as  "a  pleasant  but  awful  Treat."      One  can  hardly  avoid  the 
thought  that  no  small  portion  of  his  pleasure  arose  from  the  consciousness 
that  he  was  desecrating  a  day  which  the  Church  delighted  to  honor. 


210 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


to-day.1  There  was  no  woful  and  frequent  abandonment  of 
morals.  Society  was  sober  and  decorous.  The  things  which 
were  so  severely  reprobated  were  for  the  most  part  innocent 
departures  from  the  stern,  unsmiling  austerity  of  primeval 
Puritanism.  The  natural  pleasures  of  youth,  the  gayety  of 
a  husking-bee,  the  merriment  of  any  festival  gathering,  were 
considered  sinful  frivolities  and  indicative  of  a  culpable  lack 
of  religion. 

More  important  and  of  much  graver  moment  to  the  integ- 
rity of  the  theocratic  system  was  the  fact  that,  the  majority 
Non-church  of  the  male  population  were  outside  of  the  Churches.  There 
members.  were  many  children  not  baptized  because  their  parents  were 
not  communicants.  Many  of  the  latter,  though  themselves 
baptized  in  infancy,  had  neglected  to  become  communing 
members  of  the  Churches,  for  various  reasons  ;  such  as  a  lack 
of  "spiritual  change,"  conscious  unfitness,  dissent  from  the 
Church  creed  or  polity,  or  addiction  to  some  other  form  of 
faith  and  worship  not  recognized  by  the  law.  In  this  class 
were  many  children  and  grandchildren  of  the  original  settlers, 
while  to  their  number  were  added  many  immigrants  of  a  later 
day.  Every  one  of  this  large  number  of  non-Church  members, 
no  matter  how  well  educated,  wealthy,  or  fitted  for  citizenship 
any  of  them  might  be,  was  excluded  from  the  franchise  and 
ineligible  to  office. 

This  constituted  a  great  danger.  The  unenfranchised 
majority  was  giving  louder  and  more  frequent  expression  to 
their  discontent,  and  it  became  evident  that  in  some  way  the 
law,  or  its  application,  must  lose  a  portion  of  its  rigidity.2 
The  expedient  adopted,  the  famous  "  Half- Way  Covenant," 
while  pacifying  murmurs,  was  the  worst  thing  that  could 
possibly  have  been  devised,  sacrificing  the  purity  of  the 
Church  and  the  spirituality  of  religious  profession  to  the 
consistency  of  the  civil  statute.  The  proper  thing  for  them 
to  do  was  to  change  the  freeman's  law,  which  restricted  the 


Half-Way 
Covenant. 


1  Hodge,  History  of  Presbyterian  Church. 

2  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England^  I,  548 ;  II,  88, 134-141,  164. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  211 

franchise  to  the  members  of  the  established  Church.  An 
example  of  the  broader  base  of  freedom  was  before  them  in 
the  experience  of  Connecticut,  where  the  right  to  vote  and 
hold  office  was  never  confined  to  church-members,  and  where 
this  more  liberal  citizenship  had  wrought  only  to  the  good 
and  peace  of  the  state. 

But  to  the  men  of  Massachusetts  the  fundamental  principle 
of  their  theocracy  was  too  dear  and  sacred  for  them  to  adopt 
such  relief.  Whatever  should  be  done,  the  voter  must  still 
be  a  member  of  the  Church !  So  the  only  way  to  widen  the 
franchise  was  to  open  the  door  of  the  Church!  And  this 
was  the  expedient  adopted,  which,  while  relieving  the  im- 
mediate clamor,  inflicted  on  the  Church  baleful  consequences 
not  removed  for  nearly  one  hundred  years. 

It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  there  has  been  preserved 
any  written  outline  of  such  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  leaders. 
We  may  suppose  that,  in  their  zeal  for  the  freeman's  law, 
they  had  no  eyes  for  the  danger  to  the  Church.  Nay  —  more 
than  this  —  from  the  fact  that  in  their  action  they  made  no 
mention  of  the  franchise  whatever,  it  may  be  argued  that 
their  chief  design  was  to  make  the  Church  easier  of  ingress, 
and  to  bring  into  its  fold  many  of  those  who  were  without, 
that  access  to  its  ordinances  might  prove  to  be  "means  of 
grace "  to  them.  But  the  logic  of  events  is  too  clear  to 
allow  the  supposition  that  the  effect  upon  the  franchise  was 
absent  from  their  minds ;  and  it  seems  only  just  to  conclude 
that  this  effect  was  an  ulterior,  though  unannounced,  design. 

The  active  agent  in  this  work  of  expansion  was  the  third 
synod  of  the  Churches,  called  to  consider  the  state  of  religion,  synod  of 
which  met  in  Boston  in  1662.     The  special  work  for  which  Boston- 
the  synod  is  famous  was  its   deliverance  in   regard  to  the 
"Subjects  of  Baptism."     In  this  it  was  declared  that,  "The 
infant  seed  of  confederate  visible  believers  are  members  of 
the  same  Church  with  their  parents  and,  when  grown  up,  are 
personally  under  the  watch,  discipline,  and   government  of 
the  Church."     To  this  was  added,  "Church  members,  who 


212  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

were  admitted  in  minority,  understanding  the  doctrines  of 
faith,  and  publicly  professing  their  assent  thereto  ;  not  scanda- 
lous in  life,  and  solemnly  owning  the  covenant,  wherein  they 
give  themselves  up  and  their  children  to  the  Lord,  and  sub- 
ject themselves  to  the  government  of  Christ  in  the  Church," 
may  demand  baptism  for  their  children.1 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of  this  deliver- 
ance is  from  a  Calvinistic  standpoint  thoroughly  true,  and 
corrected  the  error  which,  in  the  past,  had  made  participa- 
tion in  the  Lord's  Supper  by  the  parent  a  condition  for  bap- 
tism of  the  child.  But  the  practical  evil  of  the  synodical 
action  was  twofold:  in  making  no  proper  distinction 
between  baptismal  and  communicant  membership;  and,  as 
the  result  proved,  in  conferring  on  the  former  all  the  reli- 
gious privileges  of  the  latter.  There  soon  followed  a  great 
relaxing  of  the  rules  by  which  the  Church  had  been  wont  to 
"  fence  the  tables,"  and  baptized  members  were  admitted  to 
the  communion  without  evidence  of  any  spiritual  change, 
with  the  thought  and  hope  that  access  to  the  sacrament  would 
be  of  gracious  influence.  Thus  was  constituted  the  "  Half- 
Way  Covenant,"  which,  really  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  politi- 
cal need,  brought  into  full  Church  relationship  multitudes 
who  were  strangers  to  vital  spiritual  experience ;  and  which 
abode  in  its  strength  until,  in  the  next  century,  Edwards 
shattered  its  power  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  Great 
Awakening. 

It  is  not  to  be  understood,  however,  that  all  the  religious 
leaders  of  the  day  were  consenting  to  this  action.  The  synod, 
as  in  duty  bound,  reported  its  action  to  the  general  court, 
which  body,  in  the  fall  session  of  1662,  enacted  as  follows : 
"  The  Court,  having  read  over  the  result  of  the  synod,  judge 
meet  to  recommend  the  same  to  the  consideration  of  all  the 
Churches  and  people  of  the  jurisdiction,  and  for  this  end  do 
order  the  printing  thereof."2 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  1 ;  196. 
*  Ibid.,  II,  1;  201. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  213 

Thereupon  arose  great  controversy.  The  leaders  of  the 
opposition  were  President  Chauncy  of  Harvard,  John  Daven- 
port of  New  Haven,  and  Increase  Mather.  These  were 
answered  by  Allen  of  Dedham,  Richard  Mather  of  Dorches- 
ter, and  Mitchell  of  Cambridge,  whom  Cotton  Mather  called 
"the  matchless  Mitchell."  The  contest  lasted  for  many 
years,  but  the  result  was  that  the  principle  of  the  synodical 
deliverance  was  adopted  by  the  majority  of  the  Churches, 
while  the  logical  widening  of  the  suffrage  was  confirmed  by 
the  state  in  the  law  of  1664,  to  be  hereafter  noted.  The 
second  synod  of  Boston,  called  in  1676,  suggested  no  depar- 
ture from  this  broader  rule.  Its  attention  was  chiefly  directed 
to  "  the  dangers  to  New  England  liberty  "  arising  from  the 
quo  warranto  proceedings  in  England  against  the  Colony 
Charter,  and  at  the  same  time  to  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  its  decision,  confirmatory  of  the  previ- 
ous adoption  of  the  Westminster  symbol,  lacked  authority 
until  ratified  by  the  general  court. l 

Meanwhile  that  the  dissension  was  proceeding  which 
issued  in  the  first  Boston  synod,  there  came  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts rulers  a  sharp  spasm  of  alarm  and  cruelty.  As  we 
look  back  upon  it,  the  alarm  seems  utterly  absurd  and  the 
cruelty  without  excuse.  Though  the  faculty  of  "putting  Quakers., 
oneself  in  another's  place  "  enables  the  judicial  mind  to  look 
upon  the  Quaker  episode  with  less  sternness  of  condemnation 
than  such  action  would  demand  to-day,  yet  the  children  of 
the  Puritans  cannot  read  the  story  with  much  patience  for 
their  fathers. 

In  1647  George  Fox  began  in  England  his  remarkable  FOX. 
career.  Believing  that  the  work  of  the  Reformation  had 
not  gone  far  enough,  he  undertook  to  restore  the  purity 
of  primitive  Christianity.  Teaching  the  doctrine  of  the 
Inward  Light  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  man,  he  would  dis- 
pense with  priest  and  presbyter  and  all  distinctions  between 
clergy  and  laity.  He  taught  that  tithes  were  unlawful,  that 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  121 ;  Cambridge  and  Saybrook  Platforms. 


214  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

oaths  were  sinful,  and  that  non-resistance  was  a  Christian 
duty.  No  person  could  without  sin  engage  in  any  military 
service.  The  enthusiasm  and  personal  character  of  Fox  drew 
to  him  many  followers,  whose  doctrines  immediately  aroused 
the  hostility  of  the  authorities  and  subjected  "  the  pestilent 
sect  of  Quakers  "  to  all  manner  of  persecution,  short  of  death 
itself. 

At  the  same  time  —  the  seething  years  of  the  English  Com- 
monwealth—  were  proclaimed  the  fanatical  vagaries  of  the 
Fifth  Monarchy  men,  and  of  the  Muggletonians,  whose  wild 
deliverances  were  in  the  common  apprehension  confused  with 
the  teachings  of  Fox.  All  were  classed  together.  Hence  it 
was  that  the  reports  brought  to  New  England  of  these  new 
religious  teachings  made  no  proper  distinctions,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  excited  the  fears  of  the  Puritans  that  the 
'*  dangerous  heresy  "  might  be  brought  to  their  people.  Moved 
by  that  fear,  before  any  of  the  sectaries  had  entered  the  coun- 
try, the  general  court  in  1654  ordered,1  that  all  persons  hav- 
ing copies  of  the  books  of  John  Reeves  and  Ludowick 
Muggleton,  "  who  pretend  to  be  the  two  last  witnesses  and 
prophets  of  Jesus  Christ,  full  of  blasphemies,"  should  bring 
or  send  them  to  the  magistrates,  on  pain  of  £10  fine  for 
failure. 

This  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  something  of  a  chal- 
lenge, accepted  first  by  two  Quaker  women,  Mary  Fisher  and 
Ann  Austin,  who  came  to  Boston  from  Barbadoes  in  July  of 
1656.  In  a  few  weeks  they  were  followed  by  nine  others ; 
and  the  whole  company,  under  the  impression  that  God  re- 
quired them  to  bear  witness  against  the  errors  of  Church  and 
State,  proceeded  at  once  to  make  themselves  as  offensive  as 
possible  to  the  ministers  and  magistrates.  They  were  promptly 
arrested,  and  being  asked  by  the  court,  "How  they  would 
make  it  appear  that  God  sent  them?  after  a  pause  they  an- 
swered, that  they  had  the  same  call  that  Abram  had  to  go 
out  of  his  country."  They  were  sent  to  prison  and  their 

1  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  169 ;  Colony  Laws,  p.  121. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  215 

books  were  burned.  While  the  governor  was  passing  the 
jail,  Mary  Prince  called  to  him  from  the  window :  "  Woe  unto 
thee  !  Thou  art  an  oppressor ! "  The  governor  sent  for  her 
twice  and  reasoned  with  her,  and  two  ministers  who  were 
present  treated  her  kindly,  "  to  which  she  returned  the 
grossest  railings,  reproaching  them  as  hirelings,  deceivers  of 
the  peoplej  Baal's  priests,  seed  of  the  serpent,  brood  of  Ish- 
mael,  and  the  like." l 

This  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  conduct  of  these  unwelcome 
guests,  whose  behavior  was  as  madness  itself  compared  to 
the  gentle,  charitable,  and  peace-loving  Friends  of  a  later  day. 
Their  spirit  was  a  frenzy,  for  which  the  only  proper  place 
was  Bedlam.  The  thought  of  opposition  to  their  doctrine, 
the  idea  of  a  paid  ministry  and  of  other  institutions  of  the 
civil  and  religious  state,  fired  them  to  a  strange  and  ungov- 
ernable rage,  in  which,  while  they  preached  against  physical 
resistance,  they  made  of  their  tongues  weapons  harder  to 
bear  than  clubs.  Instead  of  preaching  the  gospel  of  peace 
they  degenerated  into  brawlers  and  common  scolds.  There 
was  no  official  dignity  that  they  did  not  revile ;  no  sense  of 
social  decorum  that  they  did  not  outrage.2  One  of  the 
women  stripped  herself  naked  and  walked  through  the  aisles 
of  a  crowded  meeting-house,  and  another  through  the  town 
of  Salem,  in  order  to  testify  against  the  indecency  of  the 
magistrates  in  whipping  women  on  the  bare  back.  In  pro- 
portion as  they  met  any  opposition  their  behavior  grew 
more  frantic.  And,  of  course,  their  claim  in  all  was  of  a  di- 
vine mission.  Stevenson  declared  that  in  Shipton,  York- 
shire, as  he  was  ploughing,  he  heard  a  voice,  saying,  "I  have 
ordained  thee  to  be  a  prophet  to  the  nations." 

The  first  comers  of  the  sect  to  Massachusetts  may  justly 
be  called  "  avowed  firebrands,"  not  intending  permanent 
settlement,  but  with  the  deliberate  design  of  antagonizing 
the  religious  and  civil  institutions  of  the  colony,  a  design 

1  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  196. 

2  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  II,  4,  15. 


216  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

formed  and  entered  upon  in  a  thoroughly  quarrelsome  spirit. 
This  was  doubtless  increased  in  its  bitterness  by  the  repres- 
sive measures  immediately  adopted  by  the  magistrates ;  but, 
making  all  allowance  for  that  influence,  the  spirit  of  these 
New  England  Quakers  was  much  more  pugnacious  and  un- 
governable than  was  that  of  their  brethren  in  other  colonies. 
Even  the  tolerant  Roger  Williams  wrote  of  them:  "They 
are  insufferably  proud  arid  contemptuous.  I  have,  therefore, 
publicly  declared  myself  that  a  due  and  moderate  restraint 
and  punishment  of  their  incivilities,  though  pretending  con- 
science, is  so  far  from  persecution,  properly  so  called,  that  it 
is  a  duty  and  command  of  God." l 

The  effect  of  such  an  irruption  into  the  colony  was  that  of 
great  alarm.  A  nearly  hysterical  fright  took  possession  of 
the  magistrates,  as  though  they  saw  reason  to  apprehend 
that,  unless  the  severest  measures  were  used,  the  entire  com- 
munity would  be  demoralized.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  all  the 
actions  of  the  magistrates  were  predicated  on  the  heretical 
character  of  the  Quakers'  doctrine.  While  much  of  the  in- 
flictions visited  upon  its  teachers  would  be  equalled  in  any 
police  court  of  to-day  for  like  disorderly  conduct,  the  chief 
thought  and  purpose  then  was,  not  to  punish  turbulent  be- 
havior,  but  to  suppress  heresy.  The  legislation  against  the 
new  sect  constantly  defines,  "a  cursed  sect  of  hereticks 
which  are  commonly  called  Quakers,"  and  their  doctrine  as 
"  a  pestilent  Heresy."  At  the  October  session  of  the  general 
court  in  1656  began  a  series  of  laws  against  them,  growing 
more  and  more  severe  and  culminating,  two  years  after,  in 
the  doom  of  death  on  persistent  return  after  banishment.2 

Under  these  statutes  Quakers,  coming  into  the  colony,  and 
before  the  commission  of  any  offence  besides  that  of  coming, 
were  to  be  thrown  into  jail,  whipped  with  twenty  stripes,  and 
kept  at  work  until  transported  or  banished.  Shipmasters 
bringing  any  of  the  sect  were  to  be  fined  <£100.  Any  person 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  458. 

2  Laws  of  Massachusetts  Colony,  pp.  121-125. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  217 

entertaining,  encouraging,  or  concealing  Quakers  was  to  be 
fined  forty  shillings  "  for  each  hour  of  entertainment."  For 
the  poor  sectaries  themselves,  to  fines  were  added  whipping, 
mutilation,  banishment,  and  death.  The  doom  of  death 
"barely  secured  enactment  by  a  majority  of  one,"  and  this 
only  because  of  the  illness  of  a  deputy  from  Dorchester.1 

The  authorities  of  Massachusetts  urged  other  colonies  to 
take  similar  action,  but  none  of  them,  while  fining  Quakers 
and  their  helpers,  adopted  such  severe  measures  as  those  of 
Massachusetts.  The  reply  of  Rhode  Island  to  the  applica- 
tion from  Boston  contained  a  telling  comment  on  the  spirit 
of  the  sect,  to  the  effect  that  in  the  absence  of  repressive 
laws  the  Quakers  did  not  wish  to  remain  or  make  many  con- 
verts in  Rhode  Island.2  "  But  we  intend,"  wrote  Arnold,  "  to 
commend  consideration  of  their  extravagant  outgoings  to 
the  general  assembly."3 

The  commissioners  of  the  Confederacy  responded  to  the 
desire  of  Massachusetts  by  recommending  to  the  several 
colonies  that  the  Quakers  be  banished,  on  pain  of  suffering 
severe  punishment  for  return  and  death  for  a  second  return. 
This  recommendation  was  signed  by  the  younger  Winthrop, 
of  Connecticut,  very  reluctantly  ;  and  he  appended  to  his 
signature  the  words,  "  Looking  at  the  last  as  a  query  and  not 
an  Act,  I  subscribe."  Winthrop  said  that  he  would  go  on 
his  knees  to  the  magistrates  to  arrest  execution. 

There  were  four  Quakers  executed  in  Massachusetts :  Executions. 
William  Robinson,  Marmaduke  Stevenson,  Mary  Dyer,  and 
William  Leddra.  Mary  Dyer  was  the  wife  of  William  Dyer, 
the  secretary  of  Rhode  Island,  who  wrote  a  most  pathetic 
letter  to  the  magistrates  at  Boston,  on  receipt  of  which  they 
released  the  woman,  banishing  and  committing  her  to  the 
custody  of  her  husband.  The  secretary,  however,  proved 
powerless  to  shield  his  wife  from  the  consequences  of  her 

1  Puritan  Age,  pp.  451,  453. 

2  Barry,  Massachusetts,  I,  365. 
8  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  458. 


218  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

fanatical  folly.  In  a  short  time  the  infatuated  woman 
returned  to  Boston,  saying  that  she  had  "  felt  liberty  "  to 
go  to  Rhode  Island,  but  was  under  a  "  religious  restraint " 
to  come  back.  "  She  denied  our  law,  came  to  bear  wit- 
ness against  it,  and  could  not  choose  but  come  and  do  as 
formerly." l 

Stevenson  and  Robinson  had  both  been  previously  ban- 
ished, and  returning  to  Boston  declared  that  they  had  "  come 
to  offer  their  lives."  Robinson,  on  banishment  from  Massa- 
chusetts, had  gone  to  Virginia,  and  there  spent  six  months 
in  prison.  Hearing  of  the  capital  punishment  enacted  in  the 
Bay,  "  he  felt  that  the  Lord  had  laid  the  burden  "  on  him  to 
put  the  law  to  trial  in  his  own  person.  He  wrote  to  Fox 
and  Roff  in  England :  "  I  came  with  my  companion,  Marma- 
duke  Stevenson,  to  Boston,  in  obedience  to  the  Lord,  to  beare 
our  testimony  against  there  BLOODY  LAW,  which  they  have 
made.  The  Lord  laid  on  me,  my  LIFE  to  give  up,  BOSTON'S 
BLOODY  LAWES  to  try."2 

These  executions  took  place  in  1659.  By  them  the  already 
smouldering  disapproval  of  the  people  for  the  severity  of 
the  magistrates  was  fanned  into  a  flame,  and  the  magistrates 
soon  learned  that  the  population  at  large,  though  having  no 
sympathy  with  the  Quaker  views,  were  outraged  by  the  in- 
humanity of  the  laws  against  the  sect.  No  more  executions 
were  allowed  by  this  rising  public  sentiment.  Even  less 
inflictions  were  condemned  by  it,  and,  one  Brend  having 
been  whipped  unmercifully,  the  people  protested  so  effec- 
tively that  the  jailer  very  narrowly  escaped  punishment  for 
his  cruelty.3  In  consequence  of  this  feeling  among  the 
people  those  imprisoned  were  released,  and  the  general  court 
in  1661  suspended  the  capital  clause  of  the  law.  This  was  a 
practical  repeal.4  But  the  court  was  not  ready  to  concede 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  pp.  461,  469. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  1  ;  154. 

8  Puritan  Age,  p.  442  ;  Adams,  Emancipation  of  Massachusetts,  p.  165. 
*  Colonial  Laws,  p.  125. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  219 

liberty  to  the  "  cursed  sect."  In  1662  it  reenacted  the  law 
for  the  whipping  of  Quakers :  and  as  late  as  1675  a  law  was 
passed  imposing  a  fine  of  .£5  on  any  person  found  at  a  Quaker 
meeting.  This  was  a  dead  letter  at  its  enactment  —  a  last 
and  despairing  fling  of  already  impotent  bigotry.  By  this 
time  there  were  many  Quakers  in  the  colony.  "After  these 
first  excursions  they  became  an  orderly  people,  submitting  to 
the  laws,  except  such  as  relate  to  the  militia  and  support  of 
the  ministry."  l  At  Salem  they  were  permitted  to  build  their 
first  meeting-house  in  peace. 

The  credit  of  the  relief  afforded  to  the  Quakers  has  usu- 
ally been  supposed  due  to  orders  from  the  king,  but  a  com- 
paring of  dates  shows  that  the  indignant  protests  of  the 
people  anticipated  the  royal  command. 

Soon  after  the  Restoration  in  England,  Edward  Burroughs 
complained  to  Charles  of  the  cruelties  suffered  by  his  breth- 
ren in  Massachusetts,  and  the  king  issued  an  order  to  "for- 
bear to  proceed  any  further,  but  send  such  persons  to  Eng- 
land, with  the  respective  crimes  or  offences  laid  to  their 
charge."2  John  Colman  of  London  wrote  to  his  brother, 
Rev.  Dr.  Colman  of  Boston :  "  The  Quakers'  complaint  hath 
been  heard  (by  the  Privy  Council),  and  the  persons  who 
were  imprisoned  are  ordered  to  be  set  at  liberty.  I  hear  that 
at  the  hearing  the  Attorney  General  reflected  on  the  coun- 
try very  sharply,  and  said  that  was  not  the  only  instance  in 
which  they  had  assumed  to  themselves  unwarranted  powers."8 

The  general  court,  having  already  relaxed  its  severity,  re- 
plied to  the  king  in  an  attempt  to  justify  the  past  actions : 
"  Concerning  the  Quakers,  open  and  capital  blasphemers, 
open  seducers,  open  enemies  to  the  government,  malignant 
and  assiduous  promoters  of  doctrines  directly  tending  to 
subvert  both  our  Church  and  State  .  .  .  their  willingly 

1  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  I,  205. 

2  Barry,  History  of  Massachusetts,  I,  368  ;  Massachusetts  Historical  Col- 
lections, IV,  9 ;  159. 

3  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  2 ;  35. 


220  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

rushing  themselves  thereupon  (the  sword  of  the  law)  was 
their  own  act,  we  with  all  humility  conceive  a  crime  bring- 
ing their  blood  upon  their  own  head.  .  .  .  Had  they  but 
promised  to  depart  the  jurisdiction  and  not  return,  we  should 
have  been  glad  of  such  an  opportunity  that  they  should  not 
die." l  Again,  the  court  wrote  to  the  lord  chamberlain  an 
apologetic  letter,  in  which  hatred,  shame,  and  fear  are  alike 
heard.  "  In  respect,"  it  reads,  "  of  those  pestilent  hereticks, 
the  Quakers,  who  have  lately  obtained  his  Majesty's  letter 
requiring  us  to  forbear  their  punishment;  in  observance 
whereof  we  have  suspended  execution  of  our  laws  against 
them  respecting  death  or  corporal  punishment ;  but  this  in- 
dulgence they  do  abuse  to  insolency  and  seduction  of  our 
people,  and  unless  his  Majesty  strengthen  our  hands  .  .  . 
this  hopeful  plantation  is  likely  in  all  probability  to  be  de- 
stroyed !  "  At  the  same  time,  1661,  the  court  wrote  to  Lord 
Say  and  Sele  of  "  the  Quakers  risen  up  against  us,  accusing 
us  to  his  Majesty  and  intruding  themselves  upon  us,  whose 
work  it  is  to  dissemble  their  cursed  principles,  and  in  a 
tumultuous  and  rude  manner  reproaching  all  established 
order,  as  well  civil  as  ecclesiastical,  acting  a  part  as  commis- 
sionated  from  hell  to  ruin  the  poor  Churches  and  people  of 
God  here."2 

Any  judgment  upon  this  lamentable  story  must  regard  this 
alarmed  mind  of  the  authorities.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
they  seriously  entertained  a  fear  that  tolerance  of  the  pestilent 
sect  would  result  in  ruin  to  both  commonwealth  and  Church. 
To  us  such  fear  is  the  extreme  of  absurdity,  but  to  them  it 
was  real  and  solemn.  This  fear  was  intensified  into  horror 
by  the  Quaker  extravagance  in  action  and  speech.  It  could 
hardly  be  expected  that  a  Puritan  of  the  day  would  allow  the 
painting  of  such  portraits  as  the  Quaker  put  into  the  follow- 
ing words:  "A  man  that  hath  a  covetous  and  deceitful 
rotten  heart;  lying  lips  which  abound  among  them,  and  a 

1  Hutchinson,  Collections,  pp.  325,  327. 
a  J&itt,pp.  357,360. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  221 

smooth,  fawning,  flattering  tongue,  and  short  hair,  and  a 
deadly  enmity  against  those  that  are  called  Quakers  and 
others  that  oppose  their  wrongs;  such  a  hypocrite  is  a  fit 
man  to  be  a  member  of  any  New  England  Church."  l 

It  is  impossible,  in  seeking  palliation  for  the  cruelty  of  the 
government,  to  go  the  length  of  Dr.  Joel  Parker,2  who,  almost 
justifying  all  its  inflictions,  argues  that  the  Puritans  did  not 
persecute  or  harass  the  Quakers,  but  the  latter  harassed  the 
former,  while  the  Puritans  imposed  penalties  for  the  violation 
of  law.  The  argument  is  sophistical,  for  part  of  the  law  vio- 
lated was  a  limitation  on  conscience  and  worship,  the  spirit 
of  which  was  persecution.  The  history  also  shows  that  the 
first  Quakers  in  Boston  were  arrested  immediately  on  arrival, 
so  soon  as  it  was  known  that  they  belonged  to  the  "  pestilent 
sect."  At  that  time  the  only  harassment,  of  which  they  had 
been  guilty,  was  their  mere  presence  in  the  town.  It  may 
be  said  also  that  such  a  greeting  was  enough  to  stir  up  the 
bitterness  of  such  fanatics,  and  that,  had  the  magistrates 
shown  a  greater  forbearance  at  the  beginning  of  the  business, 
its  issue  would  not  have  been  so  sad  and  disgraceful. 

The  most  that  can  be  said  for  the  magistrates  is  that  their 
unreasonable  fear  destroyed  their  clearness  of  judgment.  On 
their  own  statements,  while  they  sought  to  check  disorderly 
conduct,  yet  all  their  inflictions  on  the  Quakers  were  in  the 

1  Massachusetts  and  Her  Early  History,  p.  114.     It  must  be  conceded, 
however,  that  honors  were  easy  for  vituperation  between  the  Puritan  and 
the  Quaker.     Both  raked  the  language  for  terms  which  would  both  sting  and 
express  contempt,  though  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  the  Quaker  began  the 
battle  of  words.    Some  of  the  titles  of  anti-Quaker  pamphlets  are  suggestive 
(Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  417):  as   "Hell  Broke  Loose,  or  an  History  of 
the  Quaker,  both  Old  and  New";   " Anti- Christ's   Strongest  Hold   Over- 
turned, or  the  Foundation  of  the  Religion  of  the  People  called   Quakers 
Bared  and  Razed"  ;  "  Quakerism  the  Pathway  to  Paganism."    Roger  Will- 
iams contributed  to  this  library  *«  George  Fox  Digged  out  of  his  Burrowes," 
a  play  not  only  on  the  name  of  the  great  original  Quaker,  but  also  on  his  de- 
fender and  friend,  Edward  Burroughs.     (Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New 
England,  II,  543-548,  661.) 

2  Massachusetts  and  Her  Early  History,  p.  426. 


222  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

name  of  religion  and  for  the  safety  of  their  Church.  They 
did  not  wish  to  take  life,  and  greatly  preferred  that  the 
heretics  would  be  content  to  remain  away  from  the  colony. 
"  We  desire  their  lives  absent,  rather  than  their  deaths  pres- 
ent." "For  the  security  of  the  flock,"  said  Norton,  "we 
pen  up  the  wolf ;  but  a  door  is  purposely  left  open,  whereby 
he  may  depart  at  his  pleasure."  1  Beyond  doubt,  the  decree 
of  death  was  enacted  in  terrorem,  to  frighten  away  the  here- 
tics, and  we  may  easily  believe  that  not  a  member  of  the 
general  court,  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  considered  it  pos- 
sible that  an  execution  under  it  would  occur.  When  the 
banished  four  returned,  "  those  bloody  laws  to  try,"  the  mag- 
istrates were  not  quick  to  inflict  the  fatal  penalty.  This  they 
might  have  done  under  a  strict  construction  of  the  law,  as 
death  was  the  doom  of  return,  without  remedy  or  appeal. 
But  the  magistrates  besought  the  culprits  to  go,  and  only  on 
their  persistent  refusal  resorted  to  the  extreme.  And  yet, 
while  it  can  thus  be  clearly  shown  that  they  did  not  desire  to 
take  life,  yet  the  issue  as  clearly  declares  that  they  were 
willing  to  take  life  for  opinion's  sake,  rather  than  suffer  the 
flock  "  to  be  exposed  to  the  '  pernicious  heresy '  of  the  Quaker 
4  wolf/" 

This  violent  dealing,  as  before  hinted,  did  not  accomplish 
Reaction.  its  design.  The  reaction  was  powerful  on  the  theocracy 
itself.  Puritanism  and  Religious  Liberty,  under  the  guise  of 
Quakerism,  met  in  a  death  grapple,  and,  though  four  Quakers 
went  to  the  gallows,  the  real  victory  was  with  the  "cursed 
sect "  and  the  true  principles  they  professed.  The  revulsion 
in  popular  feeling  added  an  indignant  bitterness  to  the  sense 
of  the  oppressions  suffered  by  many  dissenters,  such  as  Childs 
and  Clarke,  and  to  the  sense  of  exclusion  from  the  rights  of 
freemen  on  the  part  of  many  of  the  people.  All  these  things 
were  seen  to  be  of  one  pattern,  the  pattern  of  an  exclusive 
religionism,  to  which  must  be  moulded  everything  civil  and 
religious.  From  this  revelation  a  large  part  of  the  people 
1  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  452. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  223 

revolted,  and  from  the  death  of  Leddra  the  days  of  the 
theocracy  were  numbered.  In  several  forms  of  institution 
it  yet  lasted  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  but  it  took  its 
real  death  blow  from  its  persecution  of  the  Quakers.1  After 
this  fatal  work,  though  it  indulged  at  times  in  the  utterance 
of  imperial  language,2  like  the  law  of  1697  against  Blasphemy, 
it  yet  steadily  weakened,  until  there  remained  only  certain 
forms  of  administration,  retained  rather  for  convenience  than 
from  any  estimate  of  sacred  quality  in  them. 

The  men  of  the  next  generation  were  heartily  ashamed  of 
the  Quaker  episode.  Thus  Cotton  Mather : 3  "If  any  man 
will  appear  in  vindication  of  it,  let  him  do  as  he  pleases.  For 
my  part,  I  will  not."  The  same  man,  in  1718,  gave  a  broader 
expression  to  regret  for  the  errors  of  the  fathers,  marking  the 
happy  growth  of  religious  freedom.  The  occasion  was  an 
ordination  of  pastor  in  the  Baptist  Church  of  Boston,  a  ser- 
vice in  which  the  three  Congregational  pastors  of  the  city 
took  part.  Cotton  Mather  preached  the  sermon  and,  speak- 
ing of  religious  persecutions,  said :  "  Good  men,  alas !  have 
done  such  things  as  these.  New  England  also  has  in  former 
times  done  something  of  this  aspect,  which  would  not  now 
be  so  well  approved :  in  which,  if  the  brethren,  in  whose 
house  we  are  now  convened,  met  with  anything  too  un- 
brotherly,  they  now  with  satisfaction  hear  us  expressing  our 
dislike  of  everything  which  looked  like  persecution  in  the 
days  that  have  passed  over  us."  4 

At  the  same  time  that  King  Charles  interfered  for  the  Suffrage 
relief  of  the  Quakers,  he  bethought  him  of  two  other  classes  gn<?gco  ac 
of    men   in   Massachusetts    whose    wrongs   needed    redress. 
There  were  freeborn  Englishmen  in  the  colony  denied  the 
suffrage,5  and  there  were  men  of  the  Church  of  England 

1  Adams,  Emancipation  of  Massachusetts,  pp.  175-177. 

2  Palfrey,  II,  217. 

8  Magnolia,  VII,  24. 

*  Bacon,  American  Christianity. 

6  Social  and  Economic  History  of  New  England,  p.  269. 


224  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

forbidden  to  worship  according  to  their  conscience.  In  re- 
gard to  the  latter  there  was  a  correspondence  of  special 
interest,  illustrative  of  the  dogged  determination  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  allow  no  departure  from  the  established  order.1 
In  1662  the  king  wrote  to  the  colonial  legislature,  demanding 
that  liberty  of  Episcopal  worship  be  granted,  and  that  indi- 
vidual Episcopalians  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the 
Congregational  Churches  and  be  afforded  the  baptism  of 
their  children.  The  reply  of  the  general  court  recounts  the 
causes  of  the  Puritan  departure  from  England.  "  We  could 
not  live,"  they  say,  "  without  the  public  worship  of  God, 
nor  were  permitted  the  public  worship  without  such  a  yoke 
of  submission  and  conformities  as  we  could  not  consent  unto 
without  sin.  That  we  might,  therefore,  enjoy  divine  worship 
without  human  mixtures,  without  offence  to  God,  man,  or 
our  own  consciences,  with  leave,  but  not  without  terms,  we  de- 
parted from  our  country,  kindred,  and  father's  houses  into  this 
Patmos.  .  .  .  The  Congregational  way  is  it,  wherein  we 
desire  our  orthodox  brethren  would  bear  with  us." 

The  king  was  not  satisfied  by  this  reply  and  in  1664  sent 
over  Colonel  Richard  Nichols  —  an  incident  of  whose  coming 
was  the  capture  of  New  Amsterdam  —  and  Sir  Robert  Carre, 
joining  with  them  George  Cartwright  and  Samuel  Maverick 
Commis-  as  commissioners  to  visit  the  colonies  and  regulate  these 
affairs.  Their  instructions  as  to  Massachusetts2  repeat  the 
order,  "that  such  who  desire  to  use  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  may  be  permitted  so  to  doe  without  incurring  any 
penalty,  reproach,  or  disadvantage  in  his  interests  ; "  and 
then  proceed,  "it  being  very  scandalous  that  any  man 
should  be  debarred  the  exercise  of  his  religion,  according  to  y8 
laws  and  customs  of  England,  by  those  who  by  ye  indulgence 

1  Hutchinson,  Collections,  pp.  328,  379 ;  Massachusetts  Historical  Collec- 
tions, II,  8 ;  72,  74,  78 ;  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  64-58,  84,  87, 
102,  111. 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  54,  58,  84,  87,  102,  111 ;  Palfrey, 
II,  59. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  225 

granted  have  liberty  left  to  be  of  what  profession  in  religion 
they  please.  .  .  .  Differences  of  opinion  doe  not  lessen 
charity  to  each  other,  since  charity  is  fundamental  in  all 
religion." 

Private  instructions  charged  the  commissioners,  "to  be 
very  careful  that  nothing  be  said  or  done,  from  or  by 
which  the  people  may  thinke  or  imagine  that  there  is  any 
purpose  in  us  to  make  any  alteration  in  the  Church  Govern- 
ment, or  to  introduce  any  other  forme  of  worshipp  among 
them  than  that  they  have  chosen ;  all  our  exception  in  that 
particular  being  that  they  doe  in  truth  deny  that  liberty  of 
conscience  to  each  other."  In  order  to  conciliate  and  avoid 
suspicion,  the  commissioners  were  advised  "  to  frequent  their 
(the  colonists')  Churches  and  to  be  present  at  their  devo- 
tions," but  also,  "  that  you  carry  with  you  some  learned  and 
discreet  chaplaine,  who  in  your  own  families  will  reade  the 
Book  of  Common  prayer  and  performe  your  devotion  accord- 
ing to  the  forme  established  in  the  Church  of  England, 
excepting  only  in  wearing  the  surplesse,  which,  haveing  never 
bin  seen  in  those  countryes,  may  conveniently  be  forborne 
att  this  tyme." 

Cartwright,  in  letters  from  Boston,  wrote  to  Nichols: 
"  They  have  admitted  for  freemen  three  or  four  men  who  are 
not  members  of  the  Church,  that  by  it  they  might  evade 
the  King's  letter  in  that  poynt.  .  .  .  Their  private  soliciting 
for  voyces  against  the  next  election,  give  me  just  cause  for 
being  jealous  of  their  loyalty."  .  .  .  "Here  we  find  the 
great  probability  of  obstruction.  ...  I  doe  think  it  will  be 
better  to  beginne  at  Connecticote.  If  we  have  good  successe 
there,  it  will  be  a  strong  inducement  to  these  to  submitt 
also." 

The  commissioners  reported  to  the  English  secretary  of 
state,  with  evident  bitterness  of  disappointment :  —  "  Those 
who  have  declared  themselves  loyall  are  very  much  threat- 
ened and  in  great  feare,  and  have  earnestly  prest  us  to  sollicit 
His  Majestic  for  their  speedy  defence  and  safety.  .  .  .  We 


226  EISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

desire  you  to  acquaint  His  Majestie  with  their  desires  in  this, 
as  also  of  haveing  their  children  baptized  and  themselves  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  Supper.  .  .  .  They  did  imprison  and  bar- 
barously use  Mr.  Jourdain  for  baptizing  children.  .  .  .  Those 
whom  they  will  not  admit  to  the  Communion,  they  compell 
to  come  to  their  sermons  by  forcing  from  them  five  shillings 
for  every  neglect :  yet  these  men  thought  their  own  paying 
of  one  shilling  for  not  coming  to  prayers  in  England  was 
an  insupportable  tyranny.  They  have  put  many  Quakers  to 
death.  .  .  .  They  yet  pray  constantly  for  their  persecuted 
brethren  in  England." 

There  certainly  was  small  disposition  in  the  Boston  author- 
ities to  satisfy  the  king  and  his  commissioners,  and  when  in 
1665  the  latter  returned  to  the  charge,  demanding  liberty  of 
Episcopal  worship,  they  received  for  answer  from  the  general 
court :  "  Concerning  the  use  of  the  common  prayer  book  and 
ecclesiastical  privileges,  our  humble  addresses  to  his  majesty 
have  fully  declared  our  main  ends  in  our  being  voluntary 
exiles  from  our  dear  native  country,  which  we  had  not  chosen 
at  so  dear  a  rate,  could  we  have  seen  the  word  of  God  war- 
ranting us  to  perform  our  devotions  in  that  way;  and  to 
have  the  same  set  up  here,  we  conceive  it  is  apparent  that  it 
will  disturb  our  peace  in  our  present  enjoyments;  and  we 
have  commended  to  the  ministry  and  people  here  the  word 
of  the  Lord  for  their  rule  therein." 

This  was  a  sufficiently  explicit  refusal,  and  nothing  was 
left  to  the  commissioners  but  the  pleasure  of  a  satirical  reply. 
"  We  are  heartily  sorry,"  they  wrote,  "  to  find  that  by  some 
evil  persuasions  you  have  put  a  greater  value  upon  your  own 
conceptions  than  upon  the  wisdom  of  his  majesty  and  coun- 
cil. .  .  .  The  end  of  the  first  planters  coming  hither,  as  ex- 
pressed in  their  address,  was  the  enjoyment  of  the  liberty  of 
their  own  consciences.  .  .  .  We  admire,  therefore,  that  you 
should  deny  the  liberty  of  conscience  to  any,  and  that  upon 
a  vain  conceit  of  your  own  that  it  will  disturb  your  en- 
joyments, which  the  king  often  hath  said  it  shall  not.  .  .  . 


THE  PUEITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  227 

We  have  great  reason  both  to  think  and  say,  that  the  King 
and  his  Council  and  the  Church  of  England  understands  and 
follows  the  rules  in  God's  word  as  much  as  this  corpora- 
tion. .  .  .  His  majesty  does  not  impose  the  use  of  the  com- 
mon prayer  book  on  any,  but  he  understands  that  liberty  of 
conscience  comprehends  every  man's  conscience  as  well  as 
any."  The  weight  of  argument  was  undoubtedly  with  the 
king ;  and  it  makes  an  edifying  spectacle  to  see  Charles  thus 
striving  for  liberty  of  conscience  in  Massachusetts  at  the 
same  time  in  which  he  was  shooting  Covenanters  in  Scotland. 
The  fact  was  that  his  principle  of  religious  liberty  was  iden- 
tical with  that  of  the  Puritans,  a  liberty  for  one's  own  sect 
alone.  On  such  ground  only  he  interfered  for  Episcopalians 
in  New  England,  while  he  cared  nothing  for  the  non-con- 
formists in  old  England,  nor  remonstrated  with  Virginia  for 
persecuting  the  Puritans.  His  arguments  and  demands  were 
futile  to  move  the  men  of  Massachusetts.  Episcopacy  re- 
mained religio  illicita  in  the  colony,  until,  more  than  twenty 
years  afterward,  Governor  Andros  forced  the  issue,  seizing 
a  Church  and  holding  a  service  with  a  military  guard. 

The  king's  demand  touching  the  franchise  met  a  far  more 
acquiescent  mood  in  the  general  court.  The  matter  had, 
indeed,  been  practically  settled  in  the  issue  of  the  Boston 
synod,  but  the  court,  as  though  to  satisfy  the  king  and  also 
to  legalize  the  popular  conclusions  from  the  synod,  in  1665 
enacted  the  new  law  of  the  franchise,  substantially  as  follows : 1  New  law  of 
"  All  Englishmen,"  presenting  the  certificates  of  the  ministers  franchise- 
of  the  places  where  they  dwell  that  they  are  orthodox  and 
not  vicious  or  scandalous  in  conduct,  and  also  certificates 
from  the  selectmen  that  they  are  freeholders ;  or  who  are  in 
full  communion  with  "some  Church  among  us,"  and  are 
twenty-four  years  of  age  may  "present  their  desires  to  this 
court,  and  have  such  their  desire  propounded  and  put  to  vote 
in  the  general  court,  to  (be  admitted  to)  the  freedom  of  the 
body  politick,  by  the  suffrage  of  the  major  part." 
1  Colonial  Laws,  p.  117. 


228  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

This  was  a  great  step  forward  in  the  cause  of  liberty,  and 
though  the  terms  of  the  law  put  every  several  application  at 
the  discretion  of  the  general  court,  it  does  not  appear  that  such 
discretion  was  ever  oppressively  exercised.  With  whatever 
regret  the  court  may  have  voted  the  change,  they  recognized 
that  the  popular  mind  had  registered  beyond  repeal  the  re- 
laxing of  theocratic  restrictions.  In  1681  the  court,  in  a 
letter  to  the  king,  construes  this  law  as  a  repeal  of  the  old 
statute,  and  denies  that  now  only  Church  members  are  ad- 
mitted freemen.  But  they  conclude  their  statement  with  the 
plaintive  sentence,  "We  humbly  conceive  it  is  our  liberty 
by  charter  to  choose  whom  we  will  admit  into  our  own  com- 
pany." 1 

The  opponents  to  the  theocracy  had  thus  scored  two  vic- 
tories, —  in  this  widening  of  the  franchise  and  in  the  general 
condemnation  of  the  treatment  of  the  Quakers.  Immediately 
Baptists.  thereafter  the  Baptists,2  the  sect  of  Clarke  and  Holmes,  re- 
newed their  efforts,  and  more  successfully,  for  freedom  of 
worship.  They  were  growing  in  number  steadily.  In  Ply- 
mouth colony  the  town  of  Swanzey  was  settled  by  Baptist 
refugees  from  Massachusetts,  and  drew  no  hostile  regards 
from  the  colonial  authorities.3  In  1665,  the  general  court 
of  Massachusetts,  rendered  uneasy  by  the  increase  of  the  sect 
and  of  their  services,  cited  a  number  of  them  to  answer  for 
schism.  On  their  refusal  to  give  up  their  services,  they  were 
sentenced  to  disfranchisement  and  prison.  After  several 
months'  detention  they  were  released  on  payment  of  fines ; 
and  a  public  meeting  was  called  for  discussion  and  instruction, 
which  the  Baptists  were  required  to  attend ! 4  These  were 
probably  the  same  men  whom  Hutchinson  mentioned  by 
name :  Thomas  Goold,  Thomas  Osburne,  and  John  George, 
who  were  persecuted  for  absenting  themselves  from  the  es- 

1  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  p.  533. 

2  Palfrey,  II,  104. 

3  Hutchinson,  Massachusetts  Bay,  II,  421. 

*  Ellis,  Puritan  Age,  pp.  404-406  ;  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  399, 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  229 

tablished   Church  in  Boston!     This  was  in  the  theocratic 
stronghold,  and  showed  how  bold  the  new  sect  had  grown. 

The  action  of  the  court  caused  much  popular  agitation  and 
outspoken  dissent,  and  the  court  was  too  weak  to  enforce  its 
will.  The  issue  of  the  Quaker  episode  stood  as  an  ominous 
warning.  The  Baptists  remained  in  Boston  and  built  their 
Church.  In  1668  the  general  court  attempted  to  retrieve  the 
lost  ground  and  after  describing  the  "  obstinate  and  turbulent 
Anabaptists,"  who  count  "infant  baptism  a  nullity,"  sen- 
tenced the  sect  to  banishment. 

But  the  law  was  an  idle  word,  which  the  court  did  not  dare 
to  enforce.  The  Baptists  had  come  to  stay,  and  to  share  with 
the  Quakers  the  honor  of  securing  liberty  of  conscience  and  of 
worship  in  Puritan  Massachusetts.  Though  in  many  ways  it 
was  apparent  that  dissenters  from  the  established  order  were 
unwelcome  guests,  yet  we  hear  no  more  of  fines,  whippings, 
imprisonment,  or  exile  for  an  alien  religious  worship. 

The  union  of  Church  and  State,  however,  was  not  thereby 
dissolved.  While  it  thus  lost  a  large  measure  of  its  exclusive- 
ness,  it  continued  to  affect  much  action  and  legislation.  This 
was  indicated  by  the  calling  of  the  synod  of  1676,  whose  ad- 
vice in  the  perilous  crisis  of  that  time,  when  the  king  threat- 
ened the  revocation  of  the  charter,  was  particularly  desired 
by  the  general  court.1  It  continued  to  express  itself  in  what 
remained  for  a  century  its  chief  concern,  the  public  support 
of  the  Church,  sundry  details  of  which  will  presently  be 
noted. 

The  royal  movement  against  the  charter  occasioned  im-  The  charter, 
mense  agitation  in  the  colony,  not  only  as  threatening  the 
foundation  of  its  liberties,  but  also  entailing  unavoidable 
changes  in  the  religious  attitude  of  the  state,  changes  which 
simply  carried  on  and  widened  the  results  of  the  Quaker  and 
Baptist  incidents.  The  charter  was  revoked  by  the  king  in 
council,  in  1685,  and  Andros,  the  first  royal  governor  in  Massa- 
chusetts, brought  with  him  instructions  as  to  religious  mat- 

1  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  436. 


230  RISE  OF  EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ters  in  the  several  colonies  grouped  under  his  short-lived 
sway.  The  will  of  the  king  was  communicated  to  the  people 
in  proclamation:  "We  do  here  will  and  require  and  com- 
mand that  liberty  of  conscience  be  allowed  to  all  persons,  and 
that  such  especially  as  shall  be  conformable  to  the  rites  of  the 
Church  of  England  be  particularly  countenanced  and  encour- 
aged." i 

All  the  evidence  attainable  suggests  that  there  were  many 
Episcopalians  in  the  colony,  whose  complaints  of  their  un- 
comfortable surroundings,  their  beloved  service  denied  them 
and  their  prayer  book  closed,  were  continually  being  laid  be- 
fore the  king.2 

Andros.  With  the  coming  of  Andros  the  issue  was  forced,  and  that 

liberty,  which  had  been  obtained  by  themselves  for  the  Quakers 
and  Baptists,  was  now  extorted  for  the  Episcopalians  by  the 
strong  hand  of  the  royal  power.  The  struggle  began  with  the 
governor's  demand  for  a  Church  building,  in  which  services 
might  be  held  according  to  the  order  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. The  use  of  the  building  (the  Old  South  Church)  was 
refused.  Judge  Sewall  records : 3  "A  meeting  at  Mr.  Allen's 
of  the  Ministers  and  four  of  each  congregation  to  consider 
what  answer  to  give  the  Governor,  and  it  was  agreed  that  we 


1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  III,  7  ;  148. 

2  Among  the  representations  of  their  claims  for  the  king's  help  an  amusing 
instance  is  found  in  Josselyn's  Two  Voyages  to  New  England  (Massachu- 
setts Historical  Collections,  III,  3  ;  330)  —  a  contrast  between  them  and  the 
Puritans.     "Many  hundred  souls  there,"  he  writes,  "be  amongst  them 
grown  up  to  men  and  women's  estate  that  were  never  Christianized.  .  .  . 
The  grose  Goddons,  or  great  masters,  as  also  some  of  their  merchants,  are 
damnable  rich  .  .  .  inexplicably  covetous  and  proud.     They  receive  your 
gifts  but  as  an  homage  or  tribute  to  their  transcendency,  which  is  a  fault 
their  clergy  is  also  guilty  of.  ...     The  chiefest  objects  of  discipline,  true 
Religion  and  morality,  they  want :  some  are  of  a  Linsey-woolsey  disposition, 
of  several  professions  in  religion,  all  like  Ethiopians,  white  in  the  teeth 
only.  .  .  .    But  mistake  me  not  to  general  speeches.  .  .  .     There  are  many 
sincere  and  religious  people  amongst  them,  descried  by  their  charity  and 
humility.  .  .  .     Amongst  these  we  may  account  the  Royalists. " 

8  Sewall,  Diary,  December  21,  1686. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  231 

could  not  with  a  good  conscience  consent  that  our  Meeting 
Houses  should  be  made  use  of  for  the  Common  Prayer  Wor- 
ship." It  was  intimated  to  Andros  that  such  use  of  the  Town 
House  will  not  be  refused,  and  Sewall  notes  on  the  following 
Christmas  day :  "  The  Governor  goes  to  the  Town  House  to 
service,  Forenoon  and  Afternoon,  and  Red-Coat  going  on  his 
right  hand  and  Captain  George  on  his  left." 

The  governor,  however,  did  not  propose  to  rest  satisfied 
with  such  indirect  recognition  of  Episcopal  rights,  and  what 
he  could  not  obtain  through  open  means  he  reached  by  secret.  Episcopal 
Determined  that  the  prayer  book  should  find  entrance  into  success- 
a  religious  building  of  the  town,  he  prevailed  on  the  sexton, 
either  by  threat  or  bribe,  to  open  the  Church.     Thither,  with 
his  staff  and  sympathizers  among  the  people,  he  repaired  on 
a  Sunday,  in  full  state,  for  the  first  full  service  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  Massachusetts. 

This  triumph  of  Andros  broke  the  spirit  of  the  opposition, 
which  consented  to  an  arrangement  admitting  the  Episcopal 
service  on  the  Sunday  afternoons.  Meanwhile  steps  were  at 
once  taken  toward  building  an  Episcopal  Church.  Land  being 
desired  for  that  purpose,  it  was  at  first  refused.  Sewall  writes 
that  he  "  would  not  set  up  that  which  the  people  came  from 
England  to  avoid."  A  lot  was  soon  obtained  and  King's 
Chapel  erected  before  Andros  left  the  government. 

Encouraged  by  this  success  the  governor  ventured  yet 
another  attempt,  to  place  the  support  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
and  minister  on  the  public  charge.1  Edmund  Randolph,  one 
of  the  king's  commissioners,  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury:2 "We  have  often  moved  for  an  honorable  main- 
tenance for  our  minister,  but  they  tell  us,  those  that  hire 
him  must  maintain  him,  as  they  maintain  their  own  minister, 
by  contributions.  ...  I  humbly  represent  to  your  Grace 
that  the  three  meeting  houses  in  Boston  might  pay  twenty 
shillings  a  week  a  piece,  out  of  their  contributions,  towards 
defraying  our  Church  charges."  The  cool  impudence  of 

1  Palfrey,  II,  225,  301,  322.  2  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  549. 


232 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Episcopacy 
allowed. 


James's 
proclama- 
tion. 


this  closing  proposition  is  like  the  quiet  assumption  of  the 
Church  of  England  men  in  other  colonies,  notably  in  New 
York,  that  a  lodgment  by  sufferance  immediately  elevated 
the  English  Church  into  authority  and  conferred  a  right  to 
everything  in  sight.  The  people  of  Boston,  of  course,  could 
not  agree  with  Randolph  and  Andros.  Sewall  wrote: 
"The  bishops  would  have  thought  it  strange  to  have  been 
asked  to  contribute  towards  setting  up  New  England 
Churches."  What  made  the  demand  also  the  more  prepos- 
terous to  the  Boston  mind  was  the  fact,  to  which  Randolph 
alludes,  that  the  Boston  Churches  were  exceptional  among 
the  Churches  of  the  Colony,  in  that  their  expenses  were  met 
by  voluntary  contributions  and  not  by  public  tax.1  Despite 
the  governor  and  Randolph  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Boston 
was  forced  to  provide  for  its  own  treasury. 

Another  small  cause  of  friction  is  related  in  another  letter 
of  Randolph  to  his  grace  of  Canterbury.2  The  Episcopalians 
had  requested  the  members  of  the  old  Church  to  let  their 
clerk  toll  the  bell,  "  for  us  to  meet  to  go  to  prayers.  Their 
men  told  me,  in  excuse  for  not  doing  it,  that  they  had  con- 
sidered and  found  it  intrenched  on  their  liberty  of  conscience, 
granted  them  by  his  Majesty's  present  commission,  and  could 
in  no  wise  consent  to  it ! "  Notwithstanding  such  small  con- 
tentions, the  soreness  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  Puritan 
element  soon  passed  away,  and  it  is  pleasing  to  read  that, 
twenty  years  after,  the  Boston  town-meeting  gave  additional 
land  to  the  Church  of  England,  in  order  to  enlarge  its 
building.3  With  this  was  perfected  the  emancipation  in 
Massachusetts  of  that  form  of  religion,  which  the  Puritan 
conscience  had  learned  to  look  upon  as  only  a  little  worse 
than  popery. 

In  1687  was  published  the  proclamation  of  religious  liberty, 
designed  by  James  to  remove  Catholic  disabilities.  It  was 
received  in  the  colony4  with  various  sentiments.  Thomas 


1  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  501. 
*Ibid.,  p.  553. 


8  Sewall,  Diary,  August  14,  1710. 
,  August  24,  1687. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  233 

Danforth,  an  ex-deputy  governor,  writes  suspiciously :  "  I 
more  dread  the  consequences  thereof  than  the  execution  of 
those  penal  laws,  the  only  wall  against  popery,  that  are  now 
designed  to  be  cashiered.  We  may  without  breach  of  char- 
ity conclude  the  Popish  Counsels  are  laid."  l  Under  date 
of  August  25,  1687,  Sewall  records:  "Mr.  Mather  preaches 
from  the  5th  verse  of  Jude.  He  praised  God  for  the  Liberty 
good  people  enjoy  in  England  —  said,  "  'tis  marvelous  in  our 
eyes."  He  also  relates  that  Increase  Mather  proposed  a  day 
of  thanksgiving,  and  that  Andros  forbade  —  an  altogether 
new  experience  for  the  Massachusetts  Puritan,  whose  reli- 
gious exercises  and  appointments  had  hitherto  been  entirely 
at  his  own  discretion.  Mather  also  proposed  a  congratulatory 
address  to  the  king  from  the  ministers.  This  he  effected, 
and  himself  presented  the  address  to  James,  who  received 
him  graciously,  and  said,  "  I  hope  by  a  Parliament  to  obtain 
a  Magna  Charta  for  Liberty  of  Conscience."2 

This  hope  of  James  was  never  accomplished,  and  he  was 
soon  in  a  position  to  obtain  nothing  from  a  parliament.     Will- 
iam, his  successor,  issued  the  new  charter  of  Massachusetts, 
in  1691,  by  which  Plymouth  was  merged  in  the  larger  colony, 
and   it  was  decreed  that  "  forever  hereafter  there  shall  be 
liberty  of  conscience  allowed,  in  the  worship  of  God  to  all 
Christians    (except   Papists)." 3     The   enlarged   colony   was  Newgovem- 
made  a  royal   province,  with  a   governor  appointed  by  the  mentl 
crown,  and  the  king's  veto  on  any  legislation.     All  religious 
restriction   on   suffrage  was   removed.     This    constituted   a  Suffrage, 
crippling  blow  to  the  Puritan  oligarchy,  but  it  marked   a 
decided  advance  in  the  cause  of  liberty.     "  The  freedom  of 
the  inhabitants  was  almost  universal,"  4  while  all  bands  upon 
conscience  and  worship,  except  for  Roman  Catholics,  were 
entirely  removed.     The  liberty  of  every  Protestant  sect  was 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  VI,  1 ;  67. 

2  Palfrey,  II,  358. 

8  Colonial  Laws,  p.  31. 

*  Bancroft,  United  States,  III,  80. 


234 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Support  of 
Church. 


Five-Mile 
Act. 


fixed  in  the  fundamental  law,  and  no  longer  was  it  the  case 
as  in  the  past,  that  each  should  conquer  toleration  for  itself. 
"  We  hear  no  more  of  the  theocracy,  where  God  was  alone 
^supreme  lawgiver  and  king."  1 

""What  remained  of  the  hallowed  union  of  Church  and 
State  was  found  in  the  public  support  of  the  Congregational 
Church.  This  institution  of  tithes,  assessed  by  the  civil 
officer  as  a  public  tax,  continued  until  long  after  the  Revolu- 
tion and  not  until  1833  did  it  cease  in  Massachusetts.  There 
was  a  deeply  rooted  conviction  that  only  through  such  tax 
could  the  minister  be  supported.  Cotton  Mather,  untaught 
by  the  experience  of  the  Boston  Churches  from  the  beginning, 
or  perhaps  thinking  only  of  the  country  Churches,  wrote: 
"  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  would  have  a  poor  time  of  it,  if 
they  must  rely  on  the  free  contributions  of  the  people  for 
their  maintenance.  The  laws  of  the  province  are  the  king's 
laws,  the  minister  is  the  king's  minister,  the  salary  is  raised 
in  the  king's  name  and  is  the  king's  allowance  unto  him."  2 

In  the  interest  of  this  tax  for  Church  support  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  province  took  action  at  various  times  to  both 
continue  the  tax  and  to  remove  the  objections  of  those  not 
of  the  established  Church.  Of  course,  the  tax  itself  was 
general  on  the  entire  population,  and  every  taxpayer  was 
compelled  thereby  to  help  in  the  support  of  religious  wor- 
ship. Those  who  had  no  Church  affiliations  at  all  were  thus 
taxed  for  the  support  of  the  Congregational  Church.  Such 
indeed  was  the  case  with  everybody  until  1727,  when  the 
"  Five-Mile  Act,"  similar  to  one  already  obtaining  in  Con- 
necticut, provided  that  the  taxes  collected  from  Episcopalians 
should  be  given  to  their  own  Episcopal  minister,  if  there  was 
one  within  five  miles,  "  whose  services  they  attend."  .  .  . 
This  was  devised  for  the  relief  of  Episcopalians,  but  the 
logical  effect  of  it  was  to  put  the  Episcopal  Church  into  the 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  III,  99 ;    Palfrey,  History  of  New  England, 
III,  21,  73. 

2  Quoted  from  Baird's  Religion  in  America,  p.  244. 


THE  PUKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  235 

establishment,  as  supported  by  public  money.1  In  1728 
the  benefit  of  this  act  was  extended  to  the  Baptists  and 
Quakers ;  and  since  the  Quakers  were  opposed  on  principle 
to  a  "paid  ministry,"  in  1731  they  were  wholly  exempted 
from  Church  rates.  This  exemption,  for  some  unexplained 
reason,  was  in  1734  extended  to  "  Anabaptists."  Again  in 
1735  and  1742  the  Five-Mile  Act,  with  extensions  of  privi- 
lege, was  repassed  for  the  benefit  of  the  Episcopalians. 

The  Great  Awakening  of  1741  came  as  a  disturber  of 
the  quiet  order  of  the  Churches.  It  was  not  only  a  quick-  Great 
ening  of  the  religious  life,  but  a  protest  against  the  low  views  Awakenins- 
of  requirements  for  Church  membership  introduced  by  the 
Half- Way  Covenant,  to  which  the  great  majority  of  the 
Churches  had  fallen  victims.  It  was  attended  by  much  excite- 
ment and  many  intrusions  into  parishes  by  unauthorized  minis- 
ters, to  the  great  offence  of  many  of  the  established  clergy.2  A 
result  of  the  revival  was  seen  in  the  secession  of  members 
from  the  regular  Churches,  who  organized  Churches  of  their 
own,  and  for  that  reason  were  called  Separates.  They  de- 
sired, but  could  not  obtain,  as  such,  exemption  from  taxation 
to  support  the  established  Church,  and  in  order  to  reach  their 
purpose  many  of  the  new  Churches  organized  as  nominal  Bap- 
tists, to  obtain  the  benefit  of  the  Act  of  1734.  To  meet  this 
evasion  the  legislature  in  1752  passed  the  only  act  which  has 
reference  to  the  awakening.  This  provided  that,  "  No  person 
shall  be  esteemed  to  be  an  Anabaptist,  except  such  as  produce 
a  certificate  from  the  minister  and  two  principal  members  of 
the  Baptist  Church ; "  and  that  the  certifying  minister  must 
produce  "a  certificate  from  three  other  Baptist  Churches  in 
this,  or  neighboring  provinces,  that  the  minister  and  his 
Church  are  in  Baptist  fellowship." 

The  most  curious  incident  in  the  provincial  period  exhibits 
a  fruitless  effort  by  the  ministers,  in  1725,  to  obtain  a  synod, 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  2 ;  203,  204 ;  Colonial  Laws, 
p.  637. 

a  Palfrey,  IV,  79-100. 


236  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Synod  "  to  recover  and  establish  the  faith  and  order  of  the  gospel." 

needed.  This  desire,  true  to  the  old  institution  which  subjected  the 
Church  to  the  civil  power,  was  by  the  hand  of  Cotton  Mather 
submitted  to  the  legislature.  There  it  caused  trouble.  The 
council  assented,  but  the  house  hesitated  and  postponed  deci- 
sion for  a  year,  to  give  "  opportunity  for  instructions  from  the 
people."  During  the  year  news  of  the  movement  reached 
England  and  excited  the  opposition  of  the  bishop  of  London, 
who  seems  to  have  taken  for  granted  that  there  was  some  plot 
against  the  newly  enfranchised  Episcopalians.  Through  his 
influence  the  king's  government  reprimanded  both  the  legis- 
lature and  the  ministers,  and  forbade  the  synod,  "  as  a  bad 
precedent  for  dissenters." l 

No  event  of  the  time  could  more  strikingly  illustrate  the 
change  of  conditions.  While  the  clergy  by  their  application 
to  the  legislature  remained  faithful  to  the  principle  of  the 
theocracy,  the  hesitation  of  that  body  was  evidence  of  weaken- 
ing regard  for  the  principle  on  the  civil  side.  At  the  same 
time,  the  quiet  submission  of  both  legislature  and  clergy  to 
the  uncalled-for  interference  of  the  bishop  of  London  and 
the  peremptory  orders  of  the  king,  in  a  matter  which  really 
concerned  neither  of  them,  is  another  token  of  lost  vigor  in 
the  Puritan  attitude.  We  cannot  conceive  of  the  clergy  or 
general  court  consenting  to  any  such  dictation,  fifty  years 
before.  Still  another  feature  of  the  incident  is  the  repetition 
of  the  assumption  that  the  English  Church  had  acquired  supe- 
rior place  in  the  colony.  In  the  English  view,  the  allowance 
of  one  Episcopal  Church  in  Boston  turned  the  established 
Church  of  Massachusetts  into  a  congregation  of  dissenters ! 

To  men  of  our  day  it  seems  strange  that  the  clergy  failed 
to  insist  upon  their  desire,  or  to  hold  their  synod  without  the 
permission  of  the  civil  power.  All  accounts  agree  that  there 
was  great  need  of  some  influence  to  counteract  the  prevailing 
religious  indifference  of  the  time.  But  for  this  failure  two 
reasons  obtained.  One,  already  hinted,  was  that  relic  of  the 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  III,  391 ;  Palfrey,  III,  420. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  237 

theocracy  which  made  the  magistrate's  summons  the  only 
warrant  for  a  Church  synod.  The  Church  as  yet  had  not 
come  to  an  understanding  of  its  own  natural  autonomy.  The 
other,  and  as  powerful,  reason  was  the  loss  of  prestige  and 
power  suffered  by  the  ministers  as  a  class.  They  no  longer 
possessed  that  wide  influence  and  authority,  which  in  previ- 
ous generations  had  made  them  almost  the  virtual  rulers  of 
the  commonwealth.  This  fact  was  due,  partly  to  the  grow- 
ing consciousness  that  theocratic  institutions  were  not  fitted 
to  modern  life;  partly  to  the  increasing  numbers  of  those 
people  who  acknowledged  no  Church  bonds ;  and  partly,  per- 
haps chiefly,  to  the  course  pursued  by  the  ministers  themselves 
in  certain  past  crises. 

Cotton  Mather,  writing  of  a  former  condition  which  he 
would  admire  to  have  renewed  in  his  own  time,  said :  "  New 
England  being  a  country  whose  interests  are  remarkably  in- 
wrapped  in  ecclesiastical  circumstances,  ministers  ought  to 
concern  themselves  in  politics."1  In  the  early  day  this  minis- 
terial concern  in  politics  was  so  intimate  and  influential  that 
the  voice  of  the  clergy  was  often  the  most  powerful  in  the 
community,  at  times  even  coercing  magistrates  and  courts  to 
its  dictation.  But  the  power  was  abused  and  on  occasion 
became  the  instrument  of  cruel  bigotry  and  superstition. 
Every  case  of  religious  persecution  was  laid  at  the  door  of 
the  clergy,  and  many  times  justly.  They  were  held  chiefly 
accountable  for  the  severer  inflictions,  for  the  whipping  of 
Holmes  and  the  hanging  of  Quakers.2  When  in  the  frenzied 
crusade  against  the  Salem  witches  the  ministers  were  found 
pitiless,  urging  on  the  magistrates  who  had  begun  to  feel  com- 
passion, the  popular  sentiment  of  humanity  was  outraged, 
and  the  revolt  against  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  ministerial 
order  became  wide  and  permanent.3 

1  Quoted  by  Bancroft,  United  States,  III,  74. 

2  Adams,  Emancipation  of  Massachusetts,  p.  176. 

8  Hutchinson  preserves  a  letter  from  William  Arnold  of  Rhode  Island  to 
the  governor  of  Massachusetts,  which,  though  written  long  before  the  time  of 


238  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  ministers  never  recovered  from  this  self-dealt  blow, 
and  thereafter  what  a  minister  said  and  did  was  estimated  at 
its  intrinsic  value,  and  not  endowed  with  superior  influence 
and  authority  by  reason  of  his  office.1 

Thus  was  completed  the  breaking  down  of  the  religious 
commonwealth  in  Massachusetts,  and  the  state  made  ready 
for  that  complete  severance  from  the  Church  which,  both  as 
an  incident  and  consequent,  accompanied  the  Revolution  and 
National  Independence. 

III.     Connecticut 

The  founding  of  Connecticut  was  a  protest  against  the 
ecclesiasticism  of  Massachusetts.2  Though  the  younger  col- 
ony insisted  on  the  power  and  duty  of  the  magistrate  to  care 
for  religion  and  the  Church,  it  never  attempted  to  set  up  a 
theocracy,  and  never  conditioned  civil  and  political  privi- 
leges upon  personal  relation  to  the  Church,  save  as  respected 
the  one  office  of  governor. 

The  first  movements  of  foundation  were  under  the  lead  of 
the  younger  Winthrop  and  Hooker,  though  each  acted  quite 
distinctly  from  the  other,  and  in  different  parts  of  the  colony 
that  was  to  be.  The  former's  first  service  was  of  a  military 
character,  noted  here  only  because  his  action  brought  into 
existence  a  name  of  prominence  in  the  ecclesiastical  history 
of  Connecticut. 

It  needs  to  be  premised  that  the  Dutch  at  New  Amsterdam 
had  already  established,  though  not  without  objection  from 

the  Salem  tragedy,  but  with  evident  allusion  to  the  law  on  witchcraft,  antici- 
pates a  sentiment  common  at  the  date  of  that  awful  frenzy.  Referring  to 
certain  enemies  of  Massachusetts  and  her  policy,  he  describes  them  as  ' '  cry- 
ing out  much  against  them  that  putteth  people  to  death  for  witches  j  for,  say 
they,  there  be  no  other  witches  upon  earth  nor  devils,  but  your  own  pastors 
and  ministers  and  such  as  they  are."  (Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  238.) 

1  Von  Hoist,   Constitutional  History  of  United  States,  II,  227  et  seq. ; 
IV,  407. 

2  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  I,  178-181. 


THE  PUKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  239 

Massachusetts,  a  fort  and  trading-post  on  the  Connecticut 
River  at  Hartford.  To  this  locality  the  Puritans  of  the  Bay 
laid  claim,  while  for  the  lands  lying  on  Long  Island  Sound 
the  king  had  given  a  patent  to  Lord  Brooke  and  Lord  Say  Saybrook. 
and  Sele.  In  1634  it  came  to  the  knowledge  of  these  paten- 
tees that  the  Dutch  Van  T wilier  was  about  to  send  an  expe- 
dition to  strengthen  the  Dutch  hold  on  the  river,  and  to  take 
possession  of  its  mouth.  To  meet  this  effort  they  fitted  out 
an  opposing  force,  with  the  aid  of  the  Massachusetts  authori- 
ties, and  put  the  younger  Winthrop  in  command.  He  was  Winthrop. 
not  a  man  of  military  training  or  of  subsequent  military  life, 
but  on  this  occasion  succeeded  as  well  as  could  any  soldier. 
Approaching  by  sea,  he  reached  the  mouth  of  the  Connecticut 
in  "  the  nick  of  time,"  when  the  ships  of  Van  Twiller  were 
almost  in  sight.  He  landed,  took  possession  of  the  Point  on 
the  west  side,  built  a  fort,  and  named  the  spot  "  Saybfooke." 1 
So  were  the  Dutch  shut  out  from  the  heart  of  New  England, 
and  a  name  was  coined  which  was  destined  to  have  large 
place  in  the  New  England  Churches.  As  for  Winthrop  him- 
self, he  returned  to  Boston.  Twenty  years  after  he  cast  his 
lot  with  the  new  colony  of  Connecticut,  to  become  for  many 
years  its  governor,  and  to  guide  its  fortunes  with  a  sagacity 
and  prudence  not  far  surpassed  by  the  like  virtues  of  his 
father  in  the  government  at  the  Bay. 

About  the  same  time  with  Winthrop's  expedition,  the 
moral  impulses  which  resulted  in  the  founding  of  Connecticut 
were  at  work  in  the  mind  and  heart  —  the  broad  mind  and 
tenderly  Christian  heart  —  of  Thomas  Hooker.  A  man  of  Hooker, 
station,  education,  and  refinement,  and  a  sincere  Puritan  in 
his  dissent  from  the  "  irregularities "  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, he  had  experienced  such  persecution  at  the  hands  of 
Laud  that  he  fled  to  Holland.  In  1633  he  came  to  Boston  in 
the  ship  Griffin,  together  with  John  Cotton,  and  made  so 
favorable  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  people  that,  very 

1  Palfrey  credits  the  coinage  of  this  name  to  Fenwick.     {Compendious 
History  of  New  England,  I,  235.) 


240 


EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


soon  after  arrival,  he  was  chosen  pastor  of  the  Church  at 
Newtown  (Cambridge).  Of  him,  at  the  time  of  his  death  in 
164T,  the  elder  Winthrop  wrote  in  his  Journal :  "  Who,  for 
piety,  prudence,  wisdom,  zeal,  learning,  and  what  else  might 
make  him  serviceable  in  the  place  and  time  he  lived  in, 
might  be  compared  with  men  of  greatest  note ;  and  he  shall 
need  no  other  praise :  the  fruits  of  his  labors  in  both  Englands 
shall  preserve  an  honorable  and  happy  remembrance  of  him 
forever." 

To  Hooker,  though  for  the  most  part  in  happy  concord  with 
his  brethren  of  the  Bay,  two  features  of  the  Massachusetts 
policy  were  ungrateful :  its  restriction  of  the  suffrage,  and 
its  spirit  of  intolerance  toward  all  difference  of  opinion.  His 
views  on  the  former  point  made  the  great  difference  between 
him  and  Winthrop ;  for,  as  to  the  latter,  it  is  quite  clear  that, 
had  Winthrop  been  untrammelled  by  the  narrow  prejudices  of 
his  associates,  the  early  annals  of  the  colony  would  have 
recorded  few  instances  of  oppression.  Hooker  never  assented 
to  the  rule  which  made  membership  in  the  Church  a  condition 

Citizenship,  of  citizenship.  He  had  no  sympathy  for  the  theocratic  ideal. 
To  his  mind  it  involved  a  serious  peril  to  the  purity  of  the 
Church  and  gross  wrong  to  a  very  large  portion  of  the  com- 
munity. Where  Winthrop  argued  for  the  limited  franchise 
that,  "  the  best  part  is  always  the  least,  and  of  that  best  part 
the  wiser  part  is  always  the  lesser ;  "  Hooker  answered,  "  in 
matters  which  concern  the  common  good,  a  general  council, 
chosen  by  all,  to  transact  businesses  which  concern  all,  I  con- 
ceive most  suitable  to  rule  and  most  safe  for  relief  of  the 
whole."  *  His  was  the  first  voice  raised  in  New  England  for 
a  pure  democracy,  and,  as  the  result  proved,  there  were  many 
in  early  Massachusetts  to  follow  his  lead. 

He  had  equally   positive   convictions  on  the  question  of 

Toleration,    toleration  for  religious  differences.     Such  men  as  Dudley  and 
Ward  were  an  offence  to  him.     He  looked  with  disapproval 
on  the  harsh  measures  of  the  general  court  against  Williams 
1  Fiske,  Beginnings  of  New  England,  p.  124. 


THE  PUKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  241 

and  the  Salem  Church,  and  when  the  Hutchinson  controversy 
committed  the  authorities  to  a  course  of  harsh  repression  and 
injustice,  he  concluded  to  attempt  a  new  foundation,  where 
freedom  of  mind  should  have  larger  scope.  This  was  not 
because  of  any  agreement  with  the  opinions  of  Mrs.  Hutch- 
inson, but  because  he  held  that  such  opinions  were  no  proper 
subject  for  civil  action. 

With  him  there  were  many  others  in  entire  sympathy,  a 
large  proportion  of  his  own  flock  at  Newtown,  and  the  ex- 
governor,  Haynes,  who  had  pronounced  the  sentence  of 
banishment  on  Williams,  but  who,  by  some  influence,  —  per- 
haps that  of  Hooker  himself,  —  had  been  led  to  more  liberal 
views.1 

In  the  height  of  the  antinomian  controversy,  while  Boston 
was  ablaze  with  excitement,  the  ministry  and  court  grim  with 
determination  to  repress  heresy,  and  the  great  heresiarch 
still  defiant  and  uncondemned,  Hooker,  Haynes,  and  a  large 
company,  to  the  number  of  over  an  hundred  from  Newtown, 
Watertown,  and  Dorchester,  set  forth  on  their  journey 
through  the  wilderness  to  the  banks  of  the  Connecticut. 
They  took  with  them  all  their  belongings,  driving  before 
them  a  large  herd  of  cattle,  and  after  prosperous  travel  set- 
tled Hartford,  Windsor,  and  Wethersfield,  bent  on  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  commonwealth,  in  which  religion,  liberty, 
and  law  should  dwell  together  in  friendly  union. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  departure  from  the  Bay 
was  without  opposition,  and  that  certain  members  of  the 
Church  of  Watertown  carried  with  them  letters  of  dismission 
to  the  future  Church  on  the  Connecticut,  letters  formally 

1  Either  the  change  in  Haynes  was  great,  or  in  the  action  against  Williams 
his  official  position  compelled  him  to  be  the  mouthpiece  of  a  sentence  which 
himself  did  not  approve.  Some  years  after  his  removal  to  Connecticut,  he 
wrote  to  Williams,  describing  the  new  colony  as  "a  refuge  and  receptacle 
for  all  sorts  of  consciences  "  ;  and  he  added,  "  I  am  now  under  a  cloud,  and 
my  brother  Hooker,  with  the  Bay.  We  have  removed  from  them  thus  far,  and 
yet  they  are  not  satisfied."  (Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  280; 
Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  56.) 

B 


242  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

approved  by  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts.1  Probably 
the  thought  of  the  Bay  authorities  was,  that  the  movement 
would  extend  the  bounds  of  their  own  jurisdiction.  Had 
they  understood  that  the  issue  was  to  be  another  government 
founded  on  broader  principles  than  their  own,  it  is  not  unjust 
to  think  that  their  farewells  would  have  been  less  complacent. 
That  the  men  at  the  Bay  considered  the  emigration  as  an 
expansion  of  their  own  colony,  and  that  the  emigrants  them- 
selves so  looked  upon  it  in  the  beginning,  is  made  reasonably 
clear  by  the  fact,  that  the  first  steps  toward  forming  a  sepa- 
rate government  were  not  taken  until  the  party  had  been 
nearly  two  years  in  their  new  home.  In  that  period  they 
looked  to  Boston  as  the  seat  of  authority,  while  at  the  same 
time  constant  additions  were  made  to  their  number.  By  the 
spring  of  1638  the  community  contained  eight  hundred  peo- 
ple, and  by  common  consent  it  was  agreed,  that  the  time  had 
Orgauiza-  come  to  cut  loose  from  the  Bay  and  form  a  separate  govern- 
tion.  ment.  So  the  three  towns  of  Hartford,  Windsor,  and 

Wethersfield  associated  together  to  form  "  one  Public  State 
or  Commonwealth,"  to  which  they  gave  the  name  of  their 
beautiful  river.2  A  sermon  was  preached  by  Hooker,  in 
which  with  religious  fervor  he  laid  down  the  principles  of  a 
pure  democracy.  "The  foundation  of  authority,"  he  said, 
"  is  laid  in  the  free  consent  of  the  people.  The  choice  of  the 
public  magistrates  belongs  unto  the  people  by  God's  own 
allowance.  They,  who  have  power  to  appoint  officers  and 
magistrates,  have  the  right  also  to  set  the  bounds  and  limita- 
tions of  the  power  and  place  unto  which  they  call  them."  3 

With  the  frame  of  government  instituted  by  them  in  the 
constitution,  adopted  in  January,  1639,  —  "  the  first  written 
constitution  known  to  history,  creating  a  government," — our 
concern  here  is  simply  to  note  its  bearing  on  the  questions  of 
religion  and  the  Church.  This  is  very  clearly  indicated  in 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  I,  2. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  21. 

8  Fiske,  p.  127  ;  Connecticut  Historical  Collections,  I,  20,  21. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  243 

the  announcement  of  the  duty  of  the  civil  government  to 
"  mayntayn  the  liberty  and  purity  of  the  gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus,  as  also  the  discipline  of  the  Churches."   More  formally 
and  at  length  was  it  declared  by  the  first  general  court :  — 
"  Forasmuch  as  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Churches  and 
the  members  thereof,  as  well  as  Civil  rights  and  Liberties,  are 
carefully  to  be  maintained ;  It  is  ordered  by  this  Court  and 
decreed,  that  the  Civil  Authority  here  established  hath  power  Civil  power 
and  liberty  to  see  that  the  peace,  ordinances,  and  rules  of  Christ  j^^V 
be  observed  in  every  Church  according  to  His  word." l 

Whether  this  order  would  prove  oppressive  or  not  de- 
pended on  the  spirit  of  the  magistrates.  It  was  sufficiently 
positive  in  its  assertion  of  civil  control  to  satisfy  even  such  a 
man  as  Dudley.  It  might  be  made  to  cover  harsh  measures 
of  persecution,  or  it  might  find  its  intended  aim  in  the  en- 
couragement of  a  particular  polity  and  faith,  without  assum- 
ing any  hostile  attitude  toward  such  as  differed  from  that 
form.  This  latter  construction  was  the  one  in  the  minds  of 
those  who  announced  that  fundamental  principle  of  the  new 
commonwealth,  and  it  marks  the  distinctive  peculiarity  of  the 
established  Church  in  Connecticut. 

They  were  a  homogeneous  people  who  laid  the  foundations ; 
all  of  them  of  Puritan  extraction,  and  persuaded  that  the 
"  congregational  way "  was  most  in  harmony  with  the  word 
of  God.  From  this  persuasion  there  were  no  dissentients  at 
the  beginning,  and  many  years  passed  before  people  of  an- 
other mind  settled  among  them,  to  put  their  charity  to  a  test. 
What  they  might  have  done,  had  there  been  any  attempt  in 
the  first  year,  like  that  of  the  Brownes  at  Salem,  to  introduce 
the  prayer-book  service,  it  is  idle  to  inquire.  When,  in  after 
years,  the  men  of  Connecticut  had  to  meet  the  Episcopal 
question,  they  were  ready  with  an  answer  of  liberality. 

Without  formal  definition  or  prescription  of  the  form  of  Church 
Church  polity,  they  simply  assumed  that  the  form  to  which  Pollty- 
they  had  become  attached  in  Massachusetts,  and  which  they 

i  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  I,  21,  524,  525. 


244  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

brought  with  them,  would  be  the  model  for  the  Churches 
in  their  new  colony.  This  they  established  as  the  State- 
Church,  and  over  it  for  one  hundred  and  forty  years  the 
civil  authorities  exercised  a  power,  which  in  its  completeness 
and  detail  is  almost  unique  in  the  history  of  the  colonies :  a 
power  also  —  be  it  noted  with  emphasis  —  never  exercised 
with  harshness  or  even  ungentleness. 

This  again  makes  a  peculiar  feature  in  the  story  of  the 
Liberality.  Connecticut  Church.  The  authorities  were  not  on  the  watch 
to  warn  off  imaginary  invaders.  Their  ears  were  not  quick 
to  catch  the  sound  of  approaching  heresy,  and  they  were 
fully  ready  to  concede  the  truth  that  the  Christian  religion 
could  vitalize  other  forms  of  polity  and  worship  than  their 
own.  While  taking  care  that  Churches  of  their  own  order 
should  be  founded  and  maintained,  they  never  decreed  the 
exclusion  of  other  forms  of  faith  and  worship.  While  Massa- 
chusetts was  banishing  Episcopalians,  hanging  Quakers  and 
jailing  Baptists ;  while  New  York  was  witnessing  the  robbery 
of  Churches  for  the  benefit  of  a  pseudo-Anglican  establish- 
ment ;  while  Virginia  was  chasing  the  Puritans  out  of  her 
borders;  and  while  these  same  Puritans  were  retorting  for 
their  wrongs  upon  the  innocent  Roman  Catholics  of  Mary- 
land, Connecticut  held  herself  aloof  from  all  repressive 
measures.  The  harsh  spirit  which  represses  dissent  was 
altogether  absent  from  her  founders,  notwithstanding  the 
anti-Quaker  laws,  and  we  search  in  vain  through  her  records 
for  a  single  judicial  action,  which  can  fairly  be  set  to  the 
account  of  religious  persecution.  Her  worst  sins  against 
religious  liberty  were  in  the  exercise  of  authority  over  the 
Church  and  the  assessment  upon  the  entire  community  for 
the  support  of  the  establishment.  In  these  respects  only  did 
her  Church  laws  differ  from  the  full  liberty  conferred  by 
Williams  on  Rhode  Island,  and  by  Baltimore  on  Maryland. 
And  even  these  provisions  of  law  Connecticut,  so  soon  as 
occasion  arose,  learned  to  relax  for  the  relief  of  dissenting 
Churches. 


THE  PUKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  245 

The  difference  just  noted  was  a  very  broad  one  in  principle. 
Williams  taught  that  the  magistrate  in  his  official  station 
had  no  power  whatever  in  the  Church,  that  a  Church  founded 
and  supported  by  the  action  of  the  civil  power  was  an  offence 
to  God  and  man,  productive  only  of  confusion  and  wrong. 
Hooker  held  that  the  care  of  the  Church  was  the  first  duty 
of  the  magistrate,  and  that  civil  laws  for  the  support  of  a 
chosen  Church  were  salutary  for  both  Church  and  State. 
But  he  never  attempted  to  blend  the  two  together.  He  was 
with  Endicott  and  Winthrop  on  the  broad  question  of  Church 
establishment ;  and  with  Williams  in  his  attitude  toward  the 
theocracy.  He  was  with  Williams  also  in  hatred  of  all  per- 
secution for  opinion,  and  in  holding  that  the  criterion  for 
citizenship  should  not  be  the  same  as  for  membership  in  the 
Church. 

The  privilege  of  a  freeman  was  never  made  in  Connecticut 
a  perquisite  of  religion,  nor  conditioned  on  Church  member- 
ship. For  the  governor  alone  was  religious  profession  made 
a  prerequisite  for  office.  "  Citizenship  was  acquired  by 
inhabitancy  "  (Bancroft),  without  inquiring  as  to  religious 
views  or  Church  standing.  All  the  original  settlers  were 
freemen,  meeting  together  for  their  first  legislation,  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  and  choice  of  delegates  to  the 
general  court.  How  many  of  this  number  were  not  members 
of  the  Church  there  are  no  means  of  telling.  Doubtless  some 
of  them  were  such.  Afterwards,  as  the  population  increased, 
it  was  enacted  that  persons  could  become  freemen  only  by  a 
general  vote  of  the  town.1  This  action  was  taken  in  1643, 
with  clear  intent  to  supply  an  omission.  In  1658  the  law  de- 
fined the  conditions  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  a  taxable 
estate  of  £30.  The  law  of  1662  further  defined  that  freemen  Freeman's 
should  be  "  persons  of  civil,  peaceable,  and  honest  conversa-  law> 
tion,"  and  reduced  the  property  requirement  to  £20.  No 
trace  is  to  be  found  of  any  attempt  to  add  religious  character 
or  Church  standing  to  the  conditions  for  the  franchise. 

1  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  I,  96. 


246  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

What  we  note,  then,  in  the  story  of  this  colonial  establish- 
ment is,  not  the  spirit  of  repression  toward  variant  opinion, 
but  a  benevolent  and  fatherly  care  and  watchfulness  over  the 
interests  of  the  Church.  The  care  was  intimate,  concerning 
itself  with  many  minor  items  ;  the  erection  of  meeting-houses, 
the  calling  and  support  of  ministers,  the  location  and  boundary 
of  parishes,  the  composition  of  any  troubles  arising  in  the 
affairs  of  any  parish.  The  care  was  shown  also,  not  only  by 
the  enactment  of  general  laws,  but  by  the  action  of  the 
general  court  in  an  endless  number  of  individual  cases. 
Care  of  Everything  touching  Church  management,  any  change  in 
ies'  Church  or  in  meeting-house,  from  one  end  of  the  common- 
wealth to  the  other,  was  brought  to  the  legislature  for  its 
direction  or  permission.  Any  wrong  suffered  by  any  indi- 
vidual by  way  of  discipline  found  its  echo  in  the  general 
court.  Any  disturbance  in  a  Church  soon  brought  the  pater- 
nal bidding  of  the  court  to  consider  the  things  which  make 
for  peace.  To  one  looking  over  the  colonial  records  it  seems 
as  though  there  could  possibly  arise  no  contingency  in  Church 
affairs,  which  did  not  appear  at  some  time  and  some  place  in 
Connecticut,  and  find  the  general  court  prompt  to  examine, 
to  advise,  and  then,  if  need  be,  to  command. 

In  this  constant,  watchful,  all-embracing  and  paternal  care, 
the  ecclesiastical  legislation  of  Connecticut  differs  from  that 
of  all  the  other  colonies.  Never  used  for  oppression,  it  tended 
directly  to  build  up  and  strengthen  the  Churches.  The  argu- 
ment for  it  was  very  short  and  simple.  The  Church  was 
a  public  charge ;  its  building  erected  at  public  expense ;  its 
minister  called  by  a  town-meeting,  and  the  regular  support 
raised  by  public  tax.  Over  such  an  institution  and  arrange- 
ment it  was  considered  a  thing  of  necessity  that  the  general 
government  of  the  colony  should  extend  authority ;  with  this 
peculiarity,  already  noted,  that  it  carried  its  care  into  smallest 
details. 

Still  another  feature,  easily  discernible  by  even  a  careless 
reader  of  the  records,  is  the  high  moral  purpose  of  the  magis- 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  24.7 

trates  in  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  power.  They  seem  to 
be  always  considering  the  good  of  the  Church  and  the  genuine 
religious  interests  of  the  community.  Their  zeal  for  the 
Church  was  never  a  cloak  to  hide  personal  ambition  or  to 
build  up  magisterial  dignity  and  authority.  They  used  the 
state  for  the  real  benefit  of  the  Church;  never  the  Church  as 
a  mere  appendage  of  the  state.  In  all  the  strifes  of  legislation 
and  party,  they  never  lost  the  high  sense  of  the  Church's 
divine  origin  and  spiritual  nature.  In  the  story  of  most 
religious  establishments,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  the 
Church  is  often  exhibited  as  a  mere  instrument,  degraded  to 
further  the  schemes  of  a  political  party.  It  was  never  so 
seen  in  Connecticut,  save  in  the  strife  of  disestablishment  in 
1816-1818.  If  ever  a  religious  establishment  justified  itself 
as  proper  and  good,  this  colonial  Church  of  Connecticut  may 
be  cited  as  its  best  exponent. 

The  story  is  not  punctuated,  as  is  that  of  Massachusetts, 
by  prosecutions  of  heretics  and  jailing  of  non-conformists.  It 
has  thus  less  of  excitement,  but  it  is  interesting  in  the  con- 
stant exhibition  of  legislative  paternal  care.  Every  session 
abounded  with  action  in  Church  matters,  sometimes  sought 
for  by  the  people,  and  frequently  originated  by  the  law  makers 
themselves.  While  it  would  be  useless  to  recount  here  the 
endless  detail  of  such  legislation,  sundry  instances  may  well 
be  cited  as  illustrative  of  the  close  and  minute  care  over  all 
Church  matters. 

To  begin  with  the  Organization  of   Churches.     This  is  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  an  episcopal,  presbyterial,  or  congrega- 
tional function.     Connecticut  was  singular  among  the  colonial  Organiza- 
establishments  in  reserving  it  to  the  legislature.     The   law  Churches, 
strictly  declared  that  no  Church  was  to  be  organized  without 
the  consent  of  the  general  court ; l  and  then,  as  through  fear 
that  the  requirement  might  be  construed  as  having  reference 
solely  to  Churches  of  the  established  order,  the  law  further 

1  Massachusetts  lodged  the  power  in  the  county  court  and  at  least  four 
neighboring  churches. 


248  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ordained  that  no  "  departure  or  separate  form  of  worship " 
was  to  be  allowed,  without  the  special  permission  of  the 
court.1  Bills  for  forming  new  Churches,  dividing  parishes, 
and  sometimes  for  uniting  them,  are  of  constant  occurrence 
down  to  the  end  of  the  colonial  period. 

Most  of  them  present  nothing  more  than  the  routine  of  a 
system.  Others  are  of  a  different  sort.  Thus,  the  people 
of  East  Hartford  prayed  for  permission  to  organize  a  separate 
Church,  alleging  as  a  reason  the  difficulty  of  crossing  the 
river  to  attend  service  in  the  Hartford  Church;  "which 
difficulty,"  the  legislative  report  observed,  "  they  could  but 
foresee  before  they  settled  where  they  are,  and  therefore  is 
of  less  wayte  with  us."  Despite  this  criticism,  the  request 
was  granted,  "  provided,  that  all  lands  owned  by  East  Hart- 
ford people  on  the  west  side  pay  rates  to  the  west  side  minis- 
ter, and  that  the  people  on  the  east  side  pay  to  the  west  side 
minister  until  they  have  a  minister  of  their  own."  2  The 
people  on  the  east  side  of  New  London  were  refused  permis- 
sion for  a  new  Church,  "there  not  being  clear  evidence  of 
agreement  among  them,  nor  of  their  ability  to  afford  a  minis- 
ter honorable  maintenance."  On  a  similar  application  from 
East  Norwich  the  general  court  appointed  a  committee  to 
visit  the  locality  and  lay  out  the  parish,  declaring  the  court's 
willingness  to  grant  the  petition,  "when  they  shall  be  arrived 
to  such  a  capacity  as  to  mayntayne  a  minister."  3 

Support  of  The  Maintenance  of  the  Ministry  was  a  very  important 
ministers.  subject  for  legislative  action.  From  the  beginning  the  min- 
isterial salary  was  an  item  for  public  tax,  assessed  by  the 
selectmen  and  collected  by  the  constable  or  other  special  col- 
lector. By  the  law  of  1735,4  in  order  to  meet  many  com. 
plaints  from  ministers,  it  was  ordered  that  no  minister  should 
be  kept  out  of  his  salary  more  than  two  months  after  the  year 
had  expired.  If  he  were  kept  out,  the  selectmen  were  to  take 

1  Records,  I,  311 ;  II,  328 ;  Weeden,  Social  and  Economic  History  of  New 
England,  p.  270. 

2  Records,  IV,  136.  *  Ibid.,  Ill,  220.  *  Ibid.,  VII,  654. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  249 

out  a  warrant  directing  the  constable  to  levy  on  the  estate 
of  the  collector  or  collectors  and  pay  the  minister.  If  the 
selectmen  should  neglect  to  take  out  such  warrant,  they  must 
themselves  pay  the  salary,  and  also  a  fine  of  <£5  for  each 
neglect. 

The  earlier  law  of  1644,  the  same  with  the  law  of  the 
United  Colonies,  required  that  every  man  should  set  down 
what  he  was  willing  to  pay  for  the  minister ;  if  he  refused  such 
subscription,  he  must  be  rated  by  the  authorities ;  if  he  failed 
to  pay  this  assessment,  the  magistrate  should  collect.1  Special 
laws  provided  for  towns  with  more  than  one  Church,  that  no 
inhabitant  should  fail  of  paying  his  proportion,  and  no  minis- 
ter fail  of  receiving  his  stipend.2 

In  1711  the  Rev.  John  Jones  complained  to  the  general 
court  that  the  Church  at  Greenwich  had  not  paid  him,  where- 
upon the  court  ordered  "the  committee  who  called  John 
Jones"  (naming  them)  to  collect  the  £20  due  and  pay  the 
minister.  If  they  should  fail,  the  sheriff  was  directed  to  "  dis- 
train upon  the  body  or  bodies,  goods  or  chattels  of  any  one 
or  more  of  the  said  committee,"  and  pay  Mr.  Jones.3  There 
are  three  separate  acts  of  the  legislature  to  regulate  and  com- 
pel the  payment  of  salary  to  Mr.  Woodward  at  Norwich.4 
In  1718  the  legislature  detached  certain  portions  of  the  par- 
ishes of  Middletown  and  Wethersfield  and  united  them  to 
the  Great  Swamp  Society,  forbidding  the  residents  to  pay 
anything  to  their  former  ministers,  and  ordering  payment  in 
the  new  society.  The  people  of  West  Wethersfield  protested 
against  this  order,  but  the  lawmakers  turned  a  deaf  ear.6 

Two  cases  are  worthy  of  note  as  showing  the  beginnings 
of  the  voluntary  system,  even  within  the  establishment.     One  Voluntary 
was  in  1758,  when  the  first  society  of  New  London,  in  view  system- 
of  there  being  many  poor  people  in  the  parish  and  of   the 
willingness  of  the  richer  brethren  "  that  the  poor  should  have 
the  gospel  preached  to  them  freely,"  petitioned  the  legisla- 

1  Records,  I,  111.  8  Ibid.,  V,  282.  5  Ibid.,  VI,  48,  56. 

*  Ibid.,  II,  290.  *  Ibid.,  V,  468,  527,  555. 


250  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ture  for  permission  to  raise  money  for  Church  purposes  by 
assessment  on  pews,  and  to  appoint  from  among  themselves 
persons  to  assess  and  collect.  The  prayer  was  granted  by 
the  court.1  The  other  case  came  from  Meriden  in  1768. 
Mr.  Hubbard,  a  candidate,  was  deprived  of  his  license  by  the 
association  on  the  ground  of  unsoundness  in  faith,  but  the 
majority  of  the  Meriden  Church  insisted  on  retaining  him, 
though  not  ordained.  The  minority  complained  to  the  gen- 
eral court,  which  body  ordered,  that  those  who  are  dissatis- 
fied and  who  enter  their  names  with  the  town  clerk,  may  be 
exempt  from  tax  for  the  support  of  Mr.  Hubbard.  They  can- 
not vote  in  a  meeting  of  that  Church,  but  can  organize  and 
tax  themselves  for  the  support  of  another  gospel  ministry.2 
Meeting-  The  Meeting-Homes  also  furnished  the  legislature  with 

much  care  and  occasion,  at  times,  for  peremptory  action. 
The  law  made  the  appointment  of  the  site  of  the  meeting- 
house a  matter  for  the  general  court.  Such  was  the  custom 
from  the  first.  3  In  1731  an  act  defined  that  any  parish  (ex- 
cepting tolerated  dissenters),  wishing  to  build  a  meeting- 
house, must  apply  to  the  general  court  "  to  order  and  affix 
the  place  whereon  their  meeting  house  shalle  be  erected  and 
built."  The  penalty  for  building  the  meeting-house  without 
order  and  appointment  of  site  by  the  general  court  was  £100. 
Usually  the  legislature  simply  legalized  the  site  agreed  upon 
by  the  people,  but  occasionally  it  used  compulsion.4 

Thus,  there  was  trouble  about  the  meeting-house  in  Nor- 
walk  6  (1719).  The  old  house  was  in  great  need  of  repairs, 
while  the  people  were  divided  in  mind  as  to  renovating  tl it- 
old  house  or  building  a  new  one,  and  as  to  the  site  of  the  new 
one,  if  such  should  be  determined  on.  So  the  general  court 
appointed  a  committee  to  visit  Nor  walk  to  try  and  compose 
matters,  and  to  report  to  the  next  session  of  the  court.  This 
committee  does  not  seem  to  have  attended  to  its  duty,  for  at 

1  Records,  XI,  198.  2  Ibid.,  XIII,  108,  259.  8  Ibid.,  VII,  334. 

4  The  law  of  1744  gave  the  power  to  the  county  court.    (Records,  IX,  398.) 
6  Records,  VI,  114,  147. 


THE  PUKITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  251 

the  next  session  no  report  was  made  by  them,  and  a  new 
committee  was  appointed,  who  should  go  to  Norwalk,  hear 
all  parties,  inspect  all  proposed  sites,  and  determine  the  place 
for  the  house,  "which  place,  so  determined,  shall  be  the 
place  where  the  town  of  Norwalk  shall  set  up  their  meeting 
house."  Or,  if  the  committee  advise  repair  of  the  old  house, 
"so  it  shall  be." 

A  similar  and  more  peremptory  action  was  taken  in  regard 
to  East  Guilford.1  The  people  there  memorialized  the  legis- 
lature on  their  need  of  a  new  meeting-house,  and  a  commit- 
tee was  appointed.  The  committee  reported  their  choice  of  a 
site  for  the  new  house,  as  "  on  the  green,  where  the  old  meet- 
ing house  now  stands,  about  mid-way  between  the  said  old 
meeting  house  and  Captain  Meiggs'  Sabbath  house,  the  south- 
east corner  of  the  said  house  to  be  at  a  stake  stuck  down  by 
them."  This  site  was  "  fixed  and  determined  "  by  act  of  the 
court.  But  some  of  the  people  objected  and  sent  another 
memorial,  alleging  that  the  place  ordered  was  out  of  the 
centre  of  the  town,  and  that  the  "  committee  were  imposed 
upon  by  a  false  plan ;  and  praying  that  the  same  may  be  re- 
viewed, and  the  place  again  affixed  by  a  wise,  judicious  com- 
mittee." So  another  committee  was  appointed  and  reported 
the  same  site,  whereupon  the  court  became  very  emphatic, 
determined  to  put  up  with  no  more  complaint  and  division, 
enacting  that  "the  inhabitants  shall  set  up  their  meeting 
house  in  that  place  .  .  .  and  the  said  inhabitants  are  to  take 
notice  thereof  and  to  conform  themselves  to  this  order." 

Another  entry  is  worth  citation  as  illustrating  both  the 
court's  care  for  meeting-houses  and  its  liberal  missionary 
spirit.  In  1719  a  bill  was  passed,  "on  petition  of  several," 
granting  a  brief  for  "  a  publick  contribution  throughout  the 
colony,  to  be  improved  in  finishing  a  building  of  a  meeting 
house  for  a  Presbyterian  Congregation  in  the  city  of  New 
York."2 

1  Records,  VIII,  111,  141,  217,  246. 

2  Ibid.,  VI,  126. 


252  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  most  dominating  feature  of  the  Connecticut  system  is 
in  the  exercise  by  the  legislature  of  all  the  functions  of  a 
superior  Ecclesiastical  Court,  to  which  appeals  could  come, 
and  which,  by  way  of  review,  could  interfere  for  correction 
of  irregularities.  "  The  assembly  was  not  often  arbitrary, 
and  did  not  use  more  than  a  fraction  of  its  power.  Without 
taking  sides,  it  acted  the  part  of  a  pacificator.  .  .  but  was 
ever  ready  to  arrest  by  its  authority  any  revolutionary  or 
erratic  movement,  destructive  of  the  purity  of  the  gospel 
or  the  welfare  of  the  Churches." 1 

We  find  cases  of  appeal  by  individuals  from  the  discipline 
of  the  Churches,2  with  the  evident  understanding  that  it  was 
competent  for  the  legislature  to  review  such  proceedings  and 
either  sustain,  or  reverse,  a  Church  sentence.  There  are  also 
cases  of  legislative  dismission  of  members  from  one  Church 
to  another.  In  1741  John  Norton  of  Guilford  petitioned  the 
general  court  for  dismission  from  the  fourth  society  of  Guil- 
ford, and  to  be  "  joyned  "  to  the  first  society,  which  petition 
was  granted  by  formal  act.  By  a  like  action  in  1773  Elkanah 
Cobb  and  others  were  dismissed  from  the  Church  of  Plain- 
field,  and  joined  to  the  first  society  of  Canterbury,  "  for  all 
the  purposes  of  society  and  ecclesiastical  privileges  only,  but 
not  for  schooling,  military,  or  other  purposes."  3  The  reasons 
for  these  actions  are  not  stated,  but  it  is  probable  that  these 
individuals  were  seeking  to  indulge  a  preference  for  a  particu- 
lar minister  or  Church ;  and,  not  finding  their  former  Church 
willing  to  gratify  them  with  a  dismission,  appealed  to  the 
legislature,  which  in  response  exercised  the  function  of  a 
presbytery  or  council. 

The  most  frequent  exhibitions  of  such  exercise  were  in 
connection  with  Church  troubles  and  quarrels.  When  such 
arose  the  general  court,  either  solicited  by  the  parties  or  of 
its  own  motion,  was  prompt  to  interfere.  Very  early  in  the 

1  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  373. 

2  Records,  I,  106,  111 ;  III,  183. 
» Ibid.,  XIV,  138. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  253 

history,  the  Church  at  Hartford l  fell  into  dissension,  for  the 
healing  of  which  the  general  court  devoted  much  time  and 
advice,  with  many  persuasions  and  orders,  in  which  was  a 
curious  blending  of  authority  with  deference  to  the  opinion 
and  influence  of  Church  councils.  Mather2  says  of  the 
trouble :  "  Its  true  original  is  almost  as  obscure  as  the  rise 
of  the  Connecticut  River.  But  it  proved  in  its  unhappy  con- 
sequences too  like  that  river  in  its  annual  inundations,  for  it 
overspread  the  whole  colony  of  Connecticut.  The  factions 
inserted  themselves  into  the  smallest  as  well  as  the  greatest 
affairs  of  all  the  towns  round  about."  The  case  caused  the 
first  innovations  on  the  established  order,  and  the  recognition 
of  the  right  of  dissent.  As  for  Hartford,  the  court  also  legis- 
lated for  difficulties  in  the  Church  of  Wethersfield.3  In  both 
Churches  the  trouble  was  of  a  moral  nature,  such  as  only 
an  ecclesiastical  court  should  be  competent  to  adjudicate. 

At  Norwalk  the  people  had  fallen  into  sad  quarrelling 
about  their  meeting-house,  and  the  general  court,  exercising 
a  spiritual  jurisdiction,4  "  recommended  (them)  to  agree  and 
solemnly  comitt  the  decision  of  this  Controversy  to  the  dis- 
pose of  the  Most  High,  by  a  lott,  which  we  hope  may  be  that 
as  will  sattisfy  and  quiet  the  spirits  of  all  the  good  people  of 
that  place,  and  be  a  hopeful  means  to  continue  and  increase 
their  faith  and  love." 

So  when  trouble  came  between  the  two  Churches  at 
Windsor,  the  general  court  stepped  in  and  ordered  the 
union  of  the  two  societies,  adding  to  the  order  the  admoni- 
tion, "all  the  good  people  are  required  to  be  ayding  and 
assisting  thereto,  and  not  in  the  least  to  appose  or  hinder  the 
same,  as  they  will  answer  the  contrary  at  their  peril."  This 
was  in  1680.  For  two  years  thereafter  the  people  could  not 
agree  upon  a  minister,  when  the  legislature  again  interposed 

1  Connecticut  Historical  Collections,  II,  51-125  ;  Records,  I,  290,  312,  314, 
317,  320,  333 ;  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  192 ;  John- 
ston, History  of  Connecticut,  p.  228. 

2  Magnalia,  III,  2  ;  16.    8  Colonial  Records,  I,  342.      *  Ibid.,  Ill,  59. 


254 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Spiritual 
affairs. 


Half-Way 
Covenant. 


with  an  order  to  settle  Rev.  Samuel  Mather,  and  command- 
ing that  "  all  the  people  quietly  attend  Mr.  Mather's  ministry, 
and  proportionally  comunecate  to  his  honnerable  maynten- 
ance  and  incouragement  in  the  work  of  Christ  there."1 
There  was  similar  difficulty  at  Farmington,  and  the  legisla- 
ture appointed  a  committee  to  choose  a  minister,  commanding 
the  people  to  receive  him  as  their  minister  for  one  year  and 
to  pay  him  the  usual  salary.2 

One  other  such  case  may  be  cited  for  its  peculiarity.  A 
large  portion  of  the  Church  of  Norwich  had  become  dissatis- 
fied with  the  minister,  Mr.  Wills,  and  defaulted  in  payment 
of  salary.  Many  complaints  against,  and  from,  Wills  were 
brought  to  the  general  court.  Mr.  Wills  wanted  his  money, 
and  was  afraid  that  his  enemies  would  lock  him  out  of  the 
Church.  The  legislature  commanded  the  people  to  use  no 
violence  and  to  yield  the  Church  to  Mr.  Wills.  Finally  an 
agreement  was  reached  that  the  minister  would  resign,  if  the 
people  would  pay  him  the  salary  and  also  compensation  for 
retiring.  He  fulfilled  his  part  and  resigned,  and  soon  com- 
plained that  the  people  had  not  paid  him  anything.  On  this 
the  legislature  ordered  a  tax  on  the  society  sufficient  to  pay 
Mr.  Wills  ,£80  for  salary  and  ^£800  for  compensation,  and 
appointed  its  own  committee  to  levy  and  collect  the  money.3 

The  interest  felt  in  the  Spiritual  affairs  of  the  Church  finds 
frequent  and  varied  expression.  The  general  court  constantly 
regarded  itself  as  responsible  for  the  state  of  religion  in  the 
commonwealth,  and  for  the  purity  of  doctrine.  The  court  sent 
commissioners  to  the  Boston  synod  of  1656,  the  synod  of  the 
famous  Half-Way  Covenant,  and  sent  the  action  of  the 
synod  to  all  the  Churches,  requiring  the  Churches  to  inform 
the  court  of  any  objections.  It  asserted  its  own  approval  of 
the  action,  particularly  commending  the  admission  to  baptism 
of  the  children  of  "  persons  having  a  competency  of  knowl- 
edge, of  honest  and  godly  conversation."  4 

1  Records,  III,  73,  104  ;  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  371. 

2  Records,  IV,  382.     » Ibid.,  IX,  337,  380, 397, 480, 571.     *  Ibid.,  I,  362,  438. 


THE  PUEITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  255 

In  1666  the  general  court  ordered  a  synod  of  all  the  minis- 
ters in  the  colony  to  meet  at  Hartford l  and  dispute  on  certain 
questions  to  be  submitted  by  the  court,  most  of  them  sug- 
gested by  the  Half- Way  Covenant;  e.g.  "Whether  federal 
holiness  or  covenant  interest  be  not  the  proper  ground  of  bap- 
tism." The  next  year,  to  meet  some  objections  from  sticklers 
about  terms,  it  changed  the  name  of  the  proposed  convention 
from  "  synod  "  to  "  assembly,"  and  proposed  a  general  conven- 
tion of  clergy  in  the  three  colonies  of  Connecticut,  Massachu- 
setts, and  Plymouth,  to  consider  the  points.  Nothing  came 
of  that  motion,  and  the  court  contented  itself  with  a  less 
ambitious  scheme,  appointing,  in  1668,  Messrs.  Fitch,  Elliott, 
Bulkley,  and  Wakeman  to  meet  at  Saybrook  and  "consider 
of  some  expedient  for  our  peace  in  the  matters  of  discipline 
respecting  membership  and  baptism."  2 

The  Connecticut  clergy  were  far  from  unanimity  of  opinion 
on  the  points  involved.  The  committee  met  as  directed  and 
agreed  upon  their  report,  on  receipt  of  which  the  court  de- 
clared its  approval  of  the  established  system,  "  but  yet  foras- 
much as  sundry  persons  of  prudence  and  piety  are  otherwise 
persuaded,  this  court  doth  declare  that  all  such  persons,  being 
also  approved  according  to  law  as  orthodox  and  sound  in  the 
fundamentals  of  the  Christian  religion,  may  have  allowance 
of  their  persuasion  and  profession  in  Church  wayes  or  assem- 
blies without  disturbance."  This  is  the  first  full  note  for 
freedom  in  Connecticut  legislation.  • 

The  matters  of  Religious  Life  received  frequent  attention  Religious 
from  the  court,  with  lamentations  over  any  degeneracy  and 
failure  of  instructions.  From  the  beginning,  attendance  on 
public  worship  was  compulsory,  on  penalty  of  five  shillings 
for  every  absence.  This  requirement  was  renewed  again  and 
again.  3  In  1702  an  act  was  passed  requiring  every  person  to 
"  carefully  apply  himself  on  the  Lord's  day  to  the  duties  of 

1  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  374. 

2  Records,  II,  53,  67,  70,  85,  109. 

8  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  399. 


256  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

religion  —  to  attend  public  worship  in  some  congregation 
allowed  by  law,  provided  that  he  conscientiously  and  con- 
veniently can  attend."  Similar  acts  were  passed  in  1721, 
1750,  and  1770.  The  assembly  of  1712 l  varied  the  form  of 
title  by  an  "  Act  for  the  better  Detecting  and  more  effectual 
Punishment  of  Prophaneness  and  Immorality,"  notwithstand- 
ing which  formidable  title  the  only  misdemeanor  noted  is 
neglect  of  public  worship.  This  was  repeated  in  1721.  The 
colony  shared  in  the  same  tide  of  religious  lukewarmness 
which  caused  so  much  alarm  in  Puritan  Massachusetts,  and 
the  Connecticut  legislators  strove  mightily  to  stem  it.  In 
1675  the  council  of  governor  and  assistants  called  a  conven- 
tion of  ministers  in  the  counties  of  Hartford  and  New  Haven, 
"to  make  diligent  search  for  those  evils  amongst  us  which 
have  stirred  up  the  Lord's  anger  against  us." 2  The  proclama- 
tion for  a  fast  day  in  1680  laments  "  the  decay  of  love  to  God 
and  one  to  another,"  and  urges  prayers  "  that  we  may  become 
an  humble,  fruitful,  and  holy  people  ...  for  the  better 
preservation  and  propagation  of  religion."3 

To  reach  existing  evils  intelligently,  the  general  court  in 
1714  demanded  from  the  general  association  of  ministers  "  a 
Report  on  the  State  of  Religion,  touching  common  sins  and 
neglects,"  and  suggestive  of  measures  to  abate  them,  "  that 
thereby  all  possible  means  may  be  used  for  our  healing  and 
recovering  from  our  degeneracy." 4  The  report  of  the  minis- 
ters contains  a  list  of  common  evils,5  viz. :  — 

"1.  The  want  of  Bibles. 

2.  Great  neglect  of  public  worship. 

3.  Neglect  of  Catechizing  in  sundry  places. 

4.  Great  deficiency  in  domestical  or  family  government. 

5.  Irregularity  in   commutative    justice  upon  several  ac- 

counts.    (!) 

6.  Talebearing  and  defamation. 

1  Records,  V,  323  ;  VI,  298.         «  Ibid.,  Ill,  64.          *  palfrey,  II,  285. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  389.  *  Ibid.,  V,  530. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  257 

7.  Calumniating  and  contempt  of  authority  and  order,  both 

civil  and  ecclesiastical. 

8.  Intemperance :  with  several  other  things." 

The  reception  of  this  report  was  followed  by  the  enactment 
of  stringent  orders  to  selectmen  and  constables  to  enforce  all 
laws  touching  on  the  points  presented;  and  specially  the 
laws  about  catechizing,  public  worship,  profane  swearing,  the 
distribution  of  Bibles,  and  the  "  Act  (of  1709)  l  to  prevent 
Unreasonable  Meetings  of  Young  People  in  the  evening  after 
the  Sundays  and  other  times." 

Meanwhile  the  general  court  had  all  along,  without  waiting 
for  ministerial  initiative,  held  itself  bound  to  rebuke  all 
improprieties.  It  had  its  own  views  as  to  what  were  proper 
subjects  for  pulpit  notices,  and  ordered  its  "  secretary  to  write 
to  Stoneington  to  manifest  to  them  our  dislike  of  that  cus- 
tome  which  is  used  amongst  them  in  publishing  their  town 
concernes  on  the  Sabboth  day."2  In  1684  the  court  took 
order  to  rebuke  "  some  provoaking  evills,  as  viz :  prophana- 
tion  of  the  Sabboth,  neglect  of  cattechiseing  of  children  and 
servants,  and  of  famaly  prayer,  young  persons  shakeing  of 
the  government  of  parents  or  masters ;  boarders  and  inmates 
neglecting  the  worship  of  God  in  the  famalyes  where  they 
reside."  3  In  1721  the  court  passed  a  law  for  the  election  of 
" Ty thing-men,"  two  or  more  in  each  parish,  to  "carefully 
inspect  the  behaviour  of  all  persons  on  the  Sabbath  or  Lord's 
day,"  and  to  present  any  delinquent.4 

In  1708  the  general  court  took  measures,  perhaps  the  most 
important  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  actions  of  that  body,  to 
bring  order  and  unity  out  of  the  variant  opinions  and 
usages  in  the  Churches,  for  which  the  Half- Way  Covenant 
was  largely  responsible.  This  action  was  the  call  of  the 
Saybrook  Synod,  which  resulted  in  the  celebrated  Saybrook  Saybrook 
Platform  and  the  virtual  reestablishment  of  the  Con-  platform- 

1  Records,  V,  130.  8  Ibid.,  Ill,  148. 

2  Ibid.,  Ill,  95.  *  Ibid.,  VI,  277. 
a 


258  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

necticut  Congregational  Church.1  The  call,  issued  at 
the  spring  session  of  the  court,  ran :  "  This  assembly,  from 
their  own  observation  and  complaints  of  many  others,  being 
sensible  of  the  defects  of  the  discipline  of  the  Churches  of 
this  government,  hath  seen  fit  to  ordain  and  require,  and  it 
is  by  the  authority  of  the  same  ordained  and  required,  that 
the  ministers  of  the  several  counties  shall  meet  together,  and 
shall  appoint  two  or  more  of  their  number  to  be  their  dele- 
gates, who  shall  all  meet  together  at  Saybrook,  at  the  next 
commencement  to  be  held  there,  to  draw  a  form  of  ecclesi- 
astical discipline,  which  shall  be  offered  to  this  court  to  be 
considered  and  confirmed  by  them :  and  the  expense  shall  be 
defrayed  out  of  the  treasury  of  this  colony." 

The  synod  met  and  prepared  a  report,  containing  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  "  Heads  of  Agreement  and  Eegulations 
in  the  administration  of  Church  Discipline,"  and  presented 
the  same  to  the  court  at  its  October  session.  Thus,  together 
with  the  work  of  the  Cambridge  synod,  were  formulated  the 
statements  of  fundamental  Congregational  law.  The  gen- 
eral court  signified  its  pleasure  in  the  report,  enacting  as 
follows :  "  This  assembly  do  declare  their  great  approbation, 
and  do  ordain  that  all  the  Churches  within  this  government, 
that  are  or  shall  be  thus  united  in  doctrine,  worship,  and  dis- 
cipline, be  and  for  the  future  shall  be  owned  and  acknowledged 
as  established  by  law :  Provided  always,  that  nothing  herein 
shall  be  intended  or  construed  to  hinder  or  prevent  any 
society  or  Church,  that  is  or  shall  be  allowed  by  the  laws  of 
this  government,  who  soberly  differ  or  dissent  from  the  united 
Churches  hereby  established,  from  exercising  worship  and  dis- 
cipline in  their  own  way,  according  to  their  consciences." 
This  action  of  the  court  was  final,  and  the  platform  was  not 
referred  to  the  Churches.  It  was  ordered  to  be  printed  and 
distributed,  and  from  the  legislature  itself  went  forth  as  the 
ecclesiastical  constitution  of  the  commonwealth. 

1  Records,  V,  61,  97,  423 ;  Palfrey,  III,  341 ;  "  Cambridge  and  Saybrook 
Platforms." 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  259 

Solely  on  this  latter  account  is  it  matter  for  discussion 
here.  Its  expression  of  faith  and  principles  of  polity  do  not 
concern  our  present  purpose.  The  significant  thing  is  that  the 
civil  authority  with  the  word  of  command  imposed  it  on 
the  Churches,  an  action  of  the  same  import  as  that  by  which 
the  parliament  imposed  the  prayer  book  and  prelacy  on  the 
Church  of  England.  There  was,  indeed,  this  difference,  that 
the  Connecticut  legislature  proposed  no  harsh  restraint  and 
declared  no  penalties  for  non-conformity.  On  the  contrary, 
the  act  adopting  the  platform  made  express  provision  for 
permission  of  dissent,  with  only  the  consequence  that  a 
dissenting  Church  could  not  belong  to  the  establishment  — 
a  consequence,  in  view  of  other  legislation,  of  no  serious 
importance. 

That  other  legislation  made  room  for  many  varieties  of 
dissent,  with  a  liberality  surpassing  that  of  other  establish-  Dissent, 
ments,  and  with  a  surprising  readiness  to  concede  a  broad 
toleration.  This  readiness  stands  in  sharp  contrast  with  the 
grudging  concessions  of  Massachusetts,  where  every  gain 
of  liberty  was  extorted  from  unwilling  legislators.  This 
contrast,  however,  needs  to  be  qualified  by  the  reflection  that, 
because  of  the  homogeneity  of  the  people,  the  crucial  ques- 
tions of  toleration  did  not  arise  in  Connecticut  until  after 
the  first  two  generations  had  passed  away.  Yet  it  is  reason- 
able to  think  that  the  colony  of  Hooker  never  could  have 
exiled  Williams  or  Mrs.  Hutchinson.  Certainly,  they  did 
not  approach  the  severity  of  Boston  in  dealing  with  the 
Quakers. 

This  sect  gave  the  first  occasion  for  laws  of  discrimination 
among  religionists.  That  enthusiastic  people  appeared  about  Quakers, 
the  same  time  (1656)  in  all  the  colonies,  all  of  which  except 
Plymouth  and  Rhode  Island  felt  called  upon  to  legislate 
against  them.  The  measures  adopted  in  Connecticut,  for 
repressive  character,  lagged  far  behind  those  of  Massachu- 
setts, New  Haven,  New  York,  and  Virginia.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  the  general  court  would  have  enacted  any 


260  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

laws  at  all  against  Quakers,  had  it  not  been  for  the  pressure 
of  Massachusetts  in  the  union  of  the  four  colonies.  As 
hitherto  noted  in  the  sketches  of  Plymouth  and  Massachu- 
setts, the  Bay  colony  was  anxious  for  the  moral  support  of 
the  other  colonies  in  its  harshness  toward  that  sect.  Ply- 
mouth declined  the  action  desired,  but  Connecticut  yielded 
so  far  as  to  make  a  statute  of  repressive  character,  but  which, 
like  Bottom,  "  roared  like  any  sucking  dove."  It  used  terms 
designedly  opprobrious,  —  "Quakers,  Ranters,  Adamites,  or 
such  like  notorious  heretiques,"  but  curiously  enough  directed 
the  legislation,  not  against  the  heretics,  but  the  town  enter- 
taining them.1  The  act  of  1656  provided  that,  "  no  towne 
within  this  Jurisdiction  shall  entertaine  (such  persons)  above 
the  space  of  fourteen  days,  upon  penalty  of  .£5  per  weeke  for 
any  towne."  The  act  further  said,  "  If  the  towne  please,"  it 
could  lodge  the  Quakers  in  prison  until  they  could  be  con- 
veniently sent  away.  Shipmasters  were  to  be  mulcted  in 
£20  for  bringing  Quakers  to  the  colony.  The  act  of  1657 
forbade  a  town  giving  any  "  unnecessary  entertainment," 
and  corrected  a  fault  of  the  previous  law  by  defining  that 
the  fine  must  "be  paid  by  that  inhabitant  who  gives  the 
entertainment "  to  the  Quakers.  It  also  imposed  an  equal 
fine  on  any  "  who  shall  unnecessarily  speak  with  "  the  here- 
tics. The  next  year,  the  possession  of  Quaker  books  was 
forbidden  under  penalty  of  ten  shillings  to  all  persons, 
"  except  teaching  Elders  "  ;  and  then  the  court  dismissed  the 
whole  matter  by  leaving  "  to  the  discretion  "  of  town  magis. 
trates  the  treatment  of  "any  such  person  found  fomenting 
their  wicked  Tenets  —  to  punish  by  fine,  imprisonment,  or 
corporeal  punishment,  as  they  judge  meete." 

One  can  hardly  call  such  legislation  very  severe,  or  imagine 
a  much  less  offensive  way  of  notifying  persons  that  their 
presence  was  unwelcome.  The  discretion  and  pleasure  allowed 
to  local  officers  —  the  concession  of  fourteen  days  and  of  neces- 
sary entertainment,  with  the  studious  avoidance  of  any  pen- 

1  Colonial  Becords,  I,  283,  303,  308,  324. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  261 

alties  upon  the  Quakers  themselves  beyond  the  order  that 
they  leave  the  colony  —  are  all  tokens  of  the  legislative  unwill- 
ingness to  assume  the  r61e  of  the  persecutor. 

Nor  was  there  any  persecution  under  these  acts.  With 
these  laws  Massachusetts  had  to  be  satisfied,  and  by  them  the 
Quakers  in  Connecticut  were  practically  unmolested.  Fifty 
years  afterward  (1705),  these  acts,  almost  dead  letters  with 
their  enactment,  met  a  ridiculously  solemn  resurrection,  when 
Queen  Anne  in  council  formally  annulled  them  and  drew  to 
them  the  attention  of  the  Connecticut  legislature,  requiring 
their  repeal.1  The  general  court  at  its  next  session  accord- 
ingly passed  an  act  of  repeal ;  hardly,  one  must  think,  with- 
out consciousness  of  the  absurdity  of  the  whole  proceeding. 

The  next  item  showing  the  Connecticut  tendency  toward 
freedom  comes  in   the  story  of  the  charter  of  1662,  which  charter  of 
merged  New  Haven  in  Connecticut,  and  also  in   the  corre-  16G2- 
spondence  of  the  king's  commissioners  to  the  colonies.    In  1661 
the  general  court  of  Connecticut  addressed  a  petition  to  the 
king,  reciting  that,  "  they  had  laid  out  a  great  sum  for  the 
purchasing  a  Jurisdiction  Right  of  Mr.  George  Fenwick,  which 
they  were  given  to  understand  was  derived  from  true  Royal 
authority  by  Letters   Pattent ; "  2  and  now  expressing  their 
desire  that  the  king  would  "  confer  upon  them  by  direct  pat- 
ent their  power  and  privileges."3    In  furtherance  of  this  desire 
the  court  sent  with  the  petition  their  governor,  John  Win- 
throp  the  younger,  than  whom  there  was  not  in  New  England  The  younger 
a  more  efficient  agent.4  A  man  of  fine  scholarship,  wide  knowl-  Wmthrop. 
edge  of  books  and  the  world,  and  withal  a  person  of  great 
refinement  and   urbanity  of  manner,    he  was  equally  fitted 
for  the  colony  and  the  court.     He  struck  the  same  mood  of 
royal  complacency  which  was  equal  to  the  larger  demands  of 
Roger  Williams,  whose  visit  to  London  coincided  with  his 

1  Eecords,  II,  546. 

2  Through  the  patent  granted  to  Lords  Brooke  and  Say  and  Sele. 

3  Letters  to  Connecticut  Governors,  p.  37. 

4  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  II,  672. 


262  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

own.  Both  men  obtained  from  Charles  all  that  they  asked, 
and  Winthrop  wrote  in  high  spirits  from  London  to  the  colo- 
nial treasurer,  John  Talcott,  on  May  13,  1662,  "  The  Char- 
ter .  .  .  hath  newly  passed  the  great  seale,  and  is  as  full  and 
large  for  bounds  and  privileges  as  could  be  desired."  1  He 
might  well  be  pleased,  for  the  charter  confirmed,  what  had 
hitherto  existed  only  on  sufferance,  the  privileges  of  a  self- 
governing  republic,  subject  only  to  the  king's  allegiance.  It 
imposed  no  restraints  upon  religious  preferences,  nor  demanded 
the  admission  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  left  the  entire 
question  of  Church  and  religion  in  the  power  of  the  colony. 
Two  years  afterward  the  governor  and  general  court,  in 
grateful  recognition  of  the  king's  bounty,  requested  his  com- 
missioners to  represent  to  the  king  their  sense  of  "his  more 
abundant  grace  in  re-ratifying  our  privileges  both  civil  and 
ecclesiastick  .  .  .  (and)  our  Christian  moderation  to  men  of 
different  persuasions."  2 

Royal  com-  The  royal  commissioners  to  the  New  England  colonies  were 
missioners.  sen^  over  jn  1664.  As  already  noted  in  our  sketch  of  Massa- 
chusetts, their  experience  in  that  colony  was  not  very  pleas- 
ant. They  had  to  deal  with  men  not  given  to  toleration  and 
also  struggling  for  their  charter  as  a  man  struggles  for  his 
life.  In  Connecticut  they  met  a  different  reception  from  men 
already  grateful  for  a  royal  favor,  and  quite  justifying  the  lan- 
guage of  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon  in  his  letter  to  Winthrop, 
announcing  their  coming  :  "  I  know  you  will  give  that  recep- 
tion and  welcome  to  the  commissioners  as  is  due  to  the  quality 
they  come  to  you  in."  3 

That  portion  of  their  instructions  which  had  special  ref- 
erence to  Connecticut  ran  in  part :  "  You  shall  take  the  best 
meanes  .  .  .  that  you  may  know  the  full  difference  between 
them  and  the  Massachusetts,  both  in  their  Civill  and  Ecclesi- 

1  Connecticut  Historical  Collections,  I,  52 ;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  Eng- 
land, II,  40. 

2  Letters  to  Connecticut  Governors,  p.  61. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  51. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  263 

asticall  estate  .  .  .  making  the  same  declaration  to  them,  and 
to  all  the  rest,  of  your  firme  resolution  to  defend  and  main- 
tain their  charter,  without  the  least  restraining  them  in  the 
free  exercise  of  their  religion  ;  but  insisting  with  them,  as 
with  the  rest,  that  all  the  rest  who  dissent  from  them,  may 
have  the  like  liberty  without  undergoing  any  disadvantages 
with  reference  to  their  civill  interest,  but  that  they  enjoy  the 
same  privileges  with  the  rest."1 

As  already  noted,  Cartwright  wrote  from  Boston  to  Nic- 
olls,  "  I  doe  think  it  will  be  better  to  beginne  at  Conecticote." 
Certainly  they  found  there  an  accommodating  spirit,  though  it 
must  be  conceded  that  their  demands  were  much  less  exact 
and  imperious  than  those  made  upon  Massachusetts.  They 
submitted  to  the  general  court  several  propositions,  of  which 
the  third  required  :  "  That  all  persons  of  civil  lives  may  freely 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  their  consciences  and  the  worship  of  God 
in  that  way  which  they  think  best,  provided  that  this  liberty 
lead  not  to  the  disturbance  of  the  public,  nor  to  the  hindrance 
of  the  maintenance  of  ministers  regularly  chosen  in  each  re- 
spective parish  or  township."  To  this  the  general  court  re- 
plied :  "  To  the  third  proposition ;  we  say,  we  know  not  of 
any  one  that  hath  bin  troubled  by  us  for  attending  to  his 
conscience,  provided  he  hath  not  disturbed  the  publique."  2 

This  indicates  small  difference  between  the  commissioners 
and  the  general  court.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  former 
made  no  special  mention  of  the  Church  of  England  service, 
nor  referred  to  the  use  of  the  book  of  common  prayer,  while 
the  provision  in  their  last  clause  virtually  conceded  that  dis- 
senters, while  allowed  liberty  of  their  own  worship,  might  yet 
be  taxed  for  the  maintenance  of  the  regular  ministry.  The 
demands  on  Massachusetts  were  quite  different,  strenuously 
insisting  on  the  English  Church  service,  and  exemption  of 
Episcopalians  from  the  rates  of  the  establishment.  This  dif- 
ference may  perhaps  be  accounted  for  by  several  facts.  Not 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  II,  55,  87. 

2  Connecticut  Colonial  Records,  I,  439. 


264  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

many  Episcopalians  had  as  yet  settled  in  Connecticut,  while 
in  Massachusetts  they  were  either  numerous  or  very  clamor- 
ous. Connecticut  also  had  distinguished  itself  from  the  sis- 
ter colony  by  consistently  following  a  far  more  liberal  policy, 
so  that,  either  because  of  this  policy  or  the  want  of  occasion, 
no  religious  antagonisms  had  voiced  themselves  in  her  past. 
To  these  must  be  added  the  different  dispositions  toward  the 
king  and  his  commissioners.  Roger  Wolcott  in  his  Memorial 
of  Connecticut l  says,  "  They  (the  commissioners)  were  ill  re- 
ceived at  Boston,  but  courteously  in  Connecticut."  Un- 
doubtedly, the  prejudice  and  suspicion  of  the  one  colony, 
and  the  affability  of  the  other,  had  much  to  do  with  the  tem- 
per and  demands  of  the  king's  agents.  For  Connecticut  they 
provided  no  ground  of  complaint,  nor  made  any  further  de- 
mand for  liberty  of  worship,  satisfied  with  the  general  dis- 
claimer by  the  court  of  all  intolerance. 

Four  years  afterward  (1669)  the  general  court  made  that 
distinct  acknowledgment  of  liberty  of  opinion  and  practice 
within  the  established  Church,  already  recorded  in  our 
account  of  the  Say  brook  committee.2  It  is  notable  for  its 
generous  spirit,  and  for  its  understanding  that  even  a 
religious  establishment  must  admit  a  degree  of  elasticity  in 
its  laws  of  uniformity  —  an  understanding  exceedingly  rare 
at  that  day. 

The  proportion  of  dissent,  and  the  practical  religious 
unanimity  of  Connecticut  in  1680,  may  be  gathered  from  the 
annual  report  of  Governor  Leete  to  the  board  of  trade  in 
London.3  To  the  board's  inquiry  as  to  religious  matters 
the  governor  replied  that  there  were  twenty-six  towns 
and  twenty-one  Churches,  with  a  minister  in  every  town, 
whose  support  was  "raysed  upon  the  people  by  way  of 
rate.  .  .  .  Our  people  in  this  colony  are,  some  strict  Con- 
gregational men,  others  more  large  Congregational,  some 
moderate  Presbyterians;  and  take  the  Congregational  men 

1  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections,  III,  328.  2  p.  255. 

8  Colonial  Records^  II,  300 ;  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  223. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  265 

of  both  sorts,  they  are  the  greatest  part  of  the  people  in 
the   colony.      There  are  four  or  five  Seven  day  men,  and 
about  so  many  more  Quakers.     Great  care  is  taken  for  the 
instruction  of  the  people  in  the  Xtian  religion,  by  ministers 
cattechizing  of  them  and  preaching  to   them   twice   every 
abboth  dayes,   and  sometimes   on  Lecture   dayes:  and  so 
by  masters   of  famalyes   instructing  and  cattechizing  their 
children  and  servants,  being  soe  required  to  doe   by  law." 
From  such  a  showing  it  would  appear  that  there  was  but 
small   room  for   either  dissent  or  repression.      There  is  a 
record  of  a  very  transient  disturbing  element  which  appeared 
about  1680,  caused  by  followers  of  a  certain  John  Rogers  * 
from  whom  they  were  called  Rogerines/*      They  were  half 
Quaker    and    half    Baptist,   "passionate   denunciators    and 
3nant, '  upbraided  the  judges  and  the  courts,  railed  at  the 
ministers  as  hirelings,  refused  to  pay  rates,  and  labored  on 
Sunday.      They  did  not  meet  the   notice  and  opposition 
through  which  such  vagaries  grow,  and  have  left  no  distinct 
trace  on  the  legislation  of  the  colony. 

The  attempted  usurpation  of  James  II.  and  Andros  had  no 
effect  upon  the  religious  status  of   Connecticut,  unless  we 
remark  that  it  drove  the  people  to  much  prayer.     The  crisis 
was  short  and  sharp,  with  something  of  the  dramatic  and  a 
touch  or  two  of  humor.     The  king's  jealousy  succeeded  in 
annulling   the   Maryland   and   Massachusetts   charters,   and 
demanded  through  Andros  the  surrender  of  the  charter  of 
Connecticut.     Then   occurred  the   famous  incident  of  the 
darkened  council-chamber,  the  abstraction  of  the  charter,  and 
its  concealment  by  Captain  Wadsworth  in  the  hollow  of  the 
oak.     Never  had  dawned  upon  the  colony  a  time  of  so  great 
excitement.     The  first  intimation  that  their  charter  and  their 
separate  colonial  existence  were  in  danger  had  caused  an 
address  to  the  king  (1686)  in  which  they  said :  «  We  humbly 
beg  and  beseech  your  Ma'tie  to  continue  our  intire  Province 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  III,  440. 

2  New  Haven  Historical  Society  Papers,  III,  386. 


266  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

or  Government  within  our  known  bounds  and  colony  limits." 
When  in  the  next  year  Andros  came  to  Hartford  and  per- 
emptorily demanded  the  charter,  the  people  added  to  the 
clever  abstraction  of  that  instrument  so  much  of  prayer  for 
divine  assistance,  that  the  governor  was  impressed  and 
worried  by  it.  Wolcott  relates :  —  "  One  morning  he  said 
to  Doctor  Hooker,  he  thought  the  good  people  of  Connecti- 
cut kept  many  days  of  fasting  and  prayer  on  his  account. 
4  Very  likely,'  says  the  doctor,  '  for  we  read  that  this  kind 
goeth  not  out  by  other  means.'  "  a 

With  the  accession  of  William  and  Mary  the  colony  was 
again  more  fortunate  than  Massachusetts  and  Maryland, 
whose  forfeited  charters  were  not  restored.  Connecticut 
retained  all  its  liberties,  electing  its  own  governor  and 
assistants,  and  was  supported  therein  by  the  king's  solicitor- 
general,  whose  opinion,  sought  by  William,  was  that  the 
colony  was  within  its  legal  rights  in  so  doing  and  its  charter 
still  in  force.2  Thus  the  colony  was  permitted  to  go  on  in  its 
own  self-determining  way,  in  the  story  of  which  we  find  no 
incident  for  remark  here  until  1706. 

Then  appeared  the  first  movements  toward  organized 
dissent  from  the  established  order,  in  the  efforts  to  gather 
Episcopacy,  an  Episcopal  Church  at  Stratford.  In  that  year  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Muirson  went  thither  from  New  York,  probably  on  invi- 
tation from  some  residents  of  Stratford,  preached  and  bap- 
tized twenty-five  persons.3  This  roused  opposition  by  some 
of  the  people,  but  the  missionary  was  not  molested.  In  the 
following  year  he  came  again,  and  labored  also  at  Fail-field, 
though  not  without  the  strenuous  urgencies  of  both  magis- 
trates and  the  regular  clergy  to  the  people  not  to  attend  his 
services.  The  opposition  confined  itself  to  these  urgencies, 
and  did  not  resort  to  any  violence  against  the  minister.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut, 

1  Connecticut  Historical  Society  Collections^  III,  331 ;  Letters  to  Connec- 
ticut Governors,  pp.  170-172. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  189.  »  Barber,  Historical  Collections,  p.  409. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  267 

which  soon  made  room  for  itself  in  the  colony  and  in  the 
tolerant  consideration  of  the  authorities. 

Its  effect  on  the  statute  book  was  immediate,  for  in  1708 
the  general  court,  undoubtedly  to  meet  the  condition  thus 
arising,  enacted  its  first  law  concerning  "  Dissenters  from  the 
Established  order."1  This  was  the  year  of  the  Saybrook 
synod,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  court,  having  settled  the 
affairs  of  the  established  Church  to  its  mind,  was  specially 
complacent  toward  such  as  preferred  another  way  of  worship. 
The  act  decreed  that  dissenters  should  have  full  liberty  of 
worship,  "  without  any  let,  hindrance,  or  molestation  what- 
soever," provided  that  they  "  qualify "  as  such  by  entering 
their  names  in  the  county  court,  "  according  to  the  Act  of 
William  and  Mary."  But  they  were  not  exempted  from 
paying  rates  for  the  support  of  the  established  Church.  The 
law  is  in  entire  agreement  with  the  "  proviso "  of  the 
act  by  which  the  Saybrook  Platform  was  adopted,  and  in 
very  similar  words. 

The  legislature  of  1708  thus  made  two  distinct  declarations 
of  its  tolerant  mind.  It  will  be  noted  that  by  this  time  the 
prayer  book  had  conquered  liberty  for  itself  in  Massachusetts, 
and  in  New  York  the  folly  of  Cornbury  was  trying  to  force 
its  use  on  unwilling  people.  The  peculiarity  of  Connecticut 
is  that,  on  the  first  occasion  of  its  claim,  it  met  a  tolerant 
treatment.  The  device  of  qualifying  before  the  county 
court  and  obtaining  a  legal  permission  is  also  another 
peculiarity  in  this  colony,  significant  not  only  of  toleration 
but  of  the  governmental  intent  to  keep  a  controlling  hand 
on  religious  matters  outside  of  the  establishment,  as  within 
it.  This  latter  purpose  obtained  down  to  the  end  of  the 
colonial  period,  a  late  instance  of  which  may  be  cited  in  a 
petition  from  Baptists  in  Lyme,  in  1767,  praying  to  be  or- 
ganized into  a  distinct  Church  society.  The  general  court 
approved,  and  appointed  a  committee  of  its  own  members 
to  visit  Lyme  and  report.2 

i  Records,  V,  50.  2  Ibid.,  XII,  640. 


268 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Cutler  and 
Johnson. 


Disorders. 


After  the  liberal  laws  of  1708  the  religious  affairs  of  the 
colony  were  without  special  incident  for  narration  here  until 
1722,  when  the  established  Church  was  much  moved  by  the 
defection  of  President  Timothy  Cutler  of  Yale  College, 
Samuel  Johnson,  and  four  other  members  of  the  New  Haven 
association.  These  men  startled  their  Congregational  breth- 
ren by  going  together  into  the  Episcopal  Church.  They 
became  a  subject  of  much  ill-natured  remark  and  of  much 
correspondence.  Cotton  Mather  comments  very  severely  on 
the  "  new  Episcopalians,"  and  declares  that  Cutler  had  all 
the  time  been  a  "  secret  Episcopalian,  and  a  seducer  of  young 
men  in  the  ministry." 1  The  excitement  soon  subsided,  and 
the  right  of  the  six  clergymen  to  take  this  step  was  generally 
conceded.  Out  of  the  incident  came  what  in  modern  speech 
would  be  called  a  "great  boom"  for  Episcopacy,  the  in- 
fant efforts  of  which  had  been  somewhat  languishing.  In 
the  next  year  (1723)  the  first  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecti- 
cut was  organized  at  Stratford,  through  the  agency  of  Mr. 
Pigott,  a  missionary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel,  and  Mr.  Johnson  was  settled  as  its  rector.2 

About  the  same  time,  it  would  appear  that  some  irregulari- 
ties had  become  prominent.  Taking  advantage  of  the  liberal 
spirit  of  the  authorities,  some  dissenters  had  presumed  to 
neglect  reporting  to  the  county  court,  and  some  persons, 
"  without  the  least  pretence  or  color  of  being  ordained  (as) 
ministers  of  the  gospel  have  presumed  to  gather  together  in  a 
tumultuous  manner  and  to  administer  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism, to  the  great  abuse  and  prophanation  of  that  holy  ordi- 
nance." There  is  no  record  to  show  the  denomination  of 
these  disorderly  people.  Possibly  they  were  Rogerines.  To 
meet  this  condition  the  legislature  of  1723  passed  an  "  Act  for 
preventing  Disorders  in  the  Worship  of  God."3  The  act, 
after  reciting  the  above  disorders,  insisted  that  all  dissenters 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  2  ;  128,  133. 

2  Barber,  Historical  Collections,  p.  409. 

8  Records,  VI ;  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  386. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  269 

must  "qualify"  under  the  law  of  1708,  and  ordained  that 
such  persons  as  "  neglect  the  public  worship  of  God  in  some 
lawful  congregation,  and  form  themselves  into  separate  com- 
panies in  private  houses,  shall  each  for  every  offense  forfeit 
the  sum  of  twenty  shillings."  It  denounced  a  fine  of  £10 
and  a  whipping  on  any  person,  not  a  minister,  who  should 
dare  to  administer  the  sacraments.  This  is  the  sharpest 
specimen  of  Connecticut  law  on  the  subject  of  religion,  and 
the  only  one  in  which  the  whip  is  resorted  to  for  penalty.  It 
can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  disor- 
ders had  been  extreme,  and  cannot  be  cited  as  a  departure 
from  the  policy  of  regulated  tolerance.  But  we  find  no 
record  of  the  infliction  of  these  penalties. 

That  this  construction  is  the  true  one  seems  provable  by 
the  spirit  of  accommodation  exhibited  by  the  authorities  in 
the  matter  of  rate-paying  by  dissenters.  On  this  theme  there  Bates, 
had  been  much  discussion  and  many  appeals  for  relief,  and 
though  the  formal  legislative  action  toward  that  end  was  not 
taken  until  1727,there  are  indications  that  the  authorities  were 
not  exacting  in  the  cases  of  orderly  and  organized  dissent. 
Only  so  can  we  understand  Governor  Talcott's  correspondence 
with  the  bishop  of  London.1  "(There  is)  one  particular," 
wrote  the  bishop  in  1725,  "  in  which  I  desire  your  favor  and 
indulgence  to  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  far 
as  justice  and  the  laws  of  the  country  will  permit ;  and  that 
is,  that  they  may  not  be  constrained  to  contribute  to  the  Inde- 
pendent minister."  To  this  the  governor  replied  :  "  There  is 
but  one  Church  of  England  minister  (Mr.  Johnson  of  Strat- 
ford) in  this  colony.  His  people  are  under  no  restraint  to 
contribute  to  the  support  of  any  other  minister."  There  are 
"  some  few  persons  in  another  town,"  pretending  to  be  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  objecting  to  rates  "in  order  to 
escape  a  small  tax."  A  fair  construction  of  the  governor's 
reply  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  by  a  tacit  understanding, 
while  all  the  people  were  required  to  contribute  to  the  support 

1  Talcott  Papers;  Connecticut  Historical  Collections,  IV,  53,  65. 


270  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  religious  service,  and  while  no  merely  individual  dissent  in 
places  having  no  properly  organized  dissenting  Church  could 
exempt  from  rates  ;  yet,  in  places  where  such  a  Church  was 
organized  and  attended,  its  members  were  allowed  to  divert 
their  rates  to  the  support  of  their  own  minister. 

Very  soon  after  this  correspondence  occasion  was  served 
by  an  act  of  oppression  for  a  legal  allowance  of  this  liberty.1 
The  local  magistrates  in  the  town  of  Fairfield  in  1727  refused 
to  allow  this  diversion  of  rates,  and  insisted  that  the  members 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  should  pay  to  the  support  of  the  estab- 
lished Church.  They  carried  their  insistence  to  the  extreme 
of  putting  in  jail  ten  Episcopalians  for  declining  to  pay. 

An  appeal  to  the  legislature  by  the  outraged  Episcopalians 
Act  for  Ease  brought  immediate  relief  in  the  "Act  for  the  Ease  of  such  as 
senters  soberly  Dissent,"  of  1727,2  passed  with  special  regard  to  the 
Church  of  England.  The  law  first  declared  that  all  persons 
of  the  Church  of  England,  living  within  the  bounds  of  an 
established  parish,  should  be  taxed  for  the  support  of  the 
ministry;  then  it  ordained,  "if  there  be  a  society  of  the 
Church  of  England  with  a  rector,  so  near  that  any  person, 
who  has  declared  himself  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, can  conveniently  attend,"  the  collectors,  "  having  indif- 
ferently levied  the  tax  as  aforesaid,  shall  deliver  the  taxes 
collected  of  such  persons  to  the  minister  of  the  Church  of 
England  living  near  to  such  persons."  The  act  also  allowed 
the  Episcopalians  to  further  tax  themselves  for  an  increase  of 
their  rector's  salary. 

This  law  is  closely  like  the  famous  "  Five-Mile  Act "  of 
Massachusetts,  passed  by  a  notable  coincidence  in  the  same 
year.  It  is  less  exact  than  the  Massachusetts  law,  which  put 
a  limit  of  five  miles  on  the  range  of  Episcopal  affiliations. 
This  difference  really  amounted  to  nothing,  for  both  acts  put 
the  seal  of  legal  allowance  and  exemption  on  the  tolerated 
sect.  The  Massachusetts  act  was  broader  in  not  confining 

1  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  394. 

2  Becords,  VII,  107. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  271 

its  favor  to  the  Episcopalians,  but  extending  it  to  all  orderly 
dissenters.  Two  years  afterward,  the  Connecticut  legislature 
supplied  their  omission  by  extending  the  benefit  of  the  act 
to  the  Quakers  and  Baptists.1  As  in  Massachusetts,  so  in 
Connecticut,  the  technical  construction  of  the  act,  through 
its  instrumentality  of  charging  the  civil  officers  with  the  col- 
lection of  all  Church  support,  incorporated  the  dissenting 
Churches  into  the  Church  establishment ! 

So  the  churches  had  rest  for  a  while  until  the  rise  of  that 
convulsion,  known  as  the  Great  Awakening.  This  move-  Great 
ment,  the  sequel  to  Whitefield's  preaching  tours,  besides  its  Awakemn£- 
effects  of  much  spiritual  quickening,  was  attended  by  many 
most  deplorable  features.  The  reaction  from  the  conserva- 
tism of  the  past  had  resulted  in  many  cases  in  the  wildest 
extravagances  of  action  and  speech.  Many  of  the  promoters 
of  the  movement  were  unbridled  in  their  denunciations  of 
the  ministers,  who  could  not  go  with  them  in  the  "  new 
measures."  They  intruded  upon  parishes,  holding  irregular 
services,  urging  people  not  to  attend  the  ministry  of  their 
pastors,  whom  they  reviled  as  unconverted.  New  England 
was  divided  among  "  New  Lights  "  and  "  Old  Lights,"  while 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  middle  colonies  was  split  into 
"  Old  Side  "  and  "  New  Side."  2 

To  the  staid  representatives  of  the  Connecticut  establish- 
ment this  assault  of  excited  itinerant  and  intrusive  preachers 
was  a  grievous  offence.  Not  only  did  these  preachers  embrace 
every  opportunity  offered  by  sympathizers,  but  they  forced 
themselves  into  parishes,  uninvited  and  opposed  by  the  settled 
pastors. 

Among  the  most  troublesome  of  these  itinerants  was  James 
Davenport,  pastor  at  Southold,  Long  Island,  in  whom  the 
balance  of  mind  was  unsettled  by  the  revival  excitement.3 

1  Becords,  VII,  237,  257. 

2  Hodge,  History  of  Presbyterian   Church,  Chaps.  IV,  V ;  Palfrey,  IV, 
76-107. 

8  Talcott  Papers;  Connecticut  Historical  Collection,  V,  370. 


272  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

He  came  into  Connecticut  with  White  field  in  1740,  and  again 
in  1741  alone,  preaching  at  Stratford,  Saybrook,  and  other 
places,  and  used  most  violent  language  against  the  ministers 
and  Churches  with  "  unrestrained  liberty  of  noise  and  outcry 
in  time  of  divine  service."  A  bit  of  correspondence  between 
Colonel  Lynde  of  Saybrook  and  Governor  Talcott  may  illus- 
trate the  mind  of  the  more  sober  sort. 

The  colonel  wrote  to  the  governor  complaining  of  Daven- 
port's conduct  at  Saybrook,  where  he  had  intruded  his  service 
in  the  parish  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hart,  whom  he  had  treated 
with  great  disrespect.  Lynde  as  a  magistrate  had  thought 
of  prosecuting  him,  but  applied  to  the  governor  for  advice. 
The  reply  of  the  latter,  under  date  of  September  4,  1741, 
is  grave  and  severe.  "  I  am  surprised,"  he  wrote,  "  that 
Mr.  Davenport  should  in  so  imperious  and  unwarrientable 
manner  take  upon  him  to  condemn  any,  and  Especially  our 
most  Eminently  pious  and  Industrious  Ministers,  to  be  Car- 
nail  &c.,  which  I  look  upon  as  usurping  the  authority  of  the 
Most  High.  And  his  advice  to  people  not  to  hearken  to  their 
Ministers  by  him  condemned,  but  to  go  10  or  20  miles,  and 
that  they  had  better  sett  upon  private  meetings  amongst  them- 
selves, &c ;  all  which  is  a  violation  and  open  contempt  of  the 
Laws  of  this  Colony,  and  so  apparently  tends  to  the  breach  of 
the  peace  of  our  Religious  Sosiaties  and  subversion  of  all  good 
orders  in  Church  and  State."  The  governor  then  called  on 
ministers,  people,  and  magistrates  to  "  use  all  their  Joynt 
Interest  by  advice,  Influence,  and  authority,  to  Incourage 
what  is  vertuous  and  praiseworthy,  and  to  suppress  every 
disorderly  and  Vile  practice  and  whatsoever  tends  to  the  hurt 
and  Reproach  of  Religion." 

So  great  had  the  trouble  become  in  a  large  portion  of  the 
colony,  that  in  the  fall  session  of  1741  the  assembly  sum- 
moned the  general  association  of  ministers  to  meet  at  Guil- 
ford  in  the  following  November  to  devise  a  remedy,  "  hoping 
that  such  a  general  convention  may  issue  in  the  accommo- 
dation of  divisions,  settling  peace,  love,  and  charity,  and  pro- 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  273 

moting  the  true  interests  of  vital  religion."  *  The  convention 
met  accordingly,  and  after  discussion  found  the  root  of  the 
trouble  in  the  unwarranted  intrusion  of  itinerant  preachers  intrusion, 
into  parishes,  and  recommended  to  the  legislature  measures 
to  correct  that  evil.  This  advice  was  adopted  by  the  general 
court,  which  at  its  next  session,  1742,  passed  an  "  Act  for 
regulating  Abuses  and  correcting  Disorders  in  Ecclesiastical 
Affairs."  2  The  act  declared  :  1st,  That  any  minister,  preach- 
ing in  other  than  his  own  parish  without  the  request  of  the 
incumbent,  or  of  the  officers  of  the  Church,  if  there  were  no 
incumbent,  should  be  denied  the  support  provided  by  law; 
2d,  That  every  member  of  any  association,  intruding  by 
licensure  or  ordination  on  the  province  of  another  association, 
should  be  denied  support;  3d,  That  any  person,  not  a  settled 
or  ordained  minister,  preaching  in  any  parish  without  "express 
invitation  "  of  the  minister  of  it,  or  of  the  officers,  should 
be  fined  XI 00 ;  and  4th,  That  any  foreigner  or  stranger, 
ordained  or  not,  so  offending  should  be  "  sent  (as  a  vagrant 
person)  by  warrant  from  any  one  assistant  or  justice  of  the 
peace,  from  constable  to  constable,  out  of  the  bounds  of  this 
colony."  Some  foreigners  were  expelled,  but  returned  again, 
the  next  year,  when  the  legislature  ordered  that  they  be 
arrested,  fined  <£100,  and  again  driven  away.3 

One  of  the  preachers  sent  out  of  the  colony  was  Davenport, 
who  had  had  similar  treatment  at  Boston.  Complaints  of  his 
conduct  at  Stratford  had  been  lodged  with  the  court.  He 
was  summoned  to  appear  before  that  body,  whose  deliverance, 
after  examination,  ran :  "  That  the  acts  of  Davenport  do,  and 
have  a  natural  tendency  to,  disturb  and  destroy  the  peace  and 
order  of  this  government.  Yet  it  further  appears  to  this 
Assembly  that  the  said  Davenport  is  under  the  influence  of 
enthusiastical  impressions  and  impulses,  and  thereby  disturbed 
in  the  rational  faculty  of  his  mind,  and  therefore  to  be  pitied 

1  Eecords,  VIII,  440. 

*  Ibid.,  VIII,  454. 

*  Ibid.,  VIII,  570. 


274  KISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

and  compassionated,  and  not  to  be  treated  as  he  otherwise 
might  be."  With  this  opinion,  the  assembly  ordered  his 
transportation  to  his  home  at  Southold.1 

Another  subject  of  legislative  censure  was  Benjamin  Pum- 
roy.  He  was  first  summoned  before  the  court  with  James 
Davenport,  but  was  discharged.  Afterward  he  was  again 
summoned  on  a  bill  of  information  charging  him  with  preach- 
ing that  "  the  late  law  concerning  ecclesiastical  affairs  was  a 
foundation  to  encourage  persecution  .  .  .  was  made  without 
reason  and  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  .  .  .  that  great  men 
had  fallen  in  and  joyned  with  those  who  are  on  the  devil's 
side  and  enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  .  .  .  There  is 
no  colony  so  privileged  as  Connecticut  was,  and  now  there 
is  no  colony  so  bad  for  persecuting  laws."  Pumroy  was 
arraigned  before  the  court,  found  guilty,  and  fined  ,£50,  with 
costs  at  ,£32  10s.  Sd* 

Another  case  was  that  of  the  Rev.  John  Owen,  the  minister 
of  the  Church  at  Groton,  who  sympathized  with  the  "  New 
Lights,"  and  freely  expressed  in  his  preaching  his  condemna- 
tion of  the  proceedings  of  the  general  court.  This  was  con- 
strued by  the  court  as  "  tending  to  bring  the  laws  of  this 
government  into  contempt,"  on  which  the  arrest  of  Owen 
was  ordered  and  his  production  before  the  assembly.  He 
appeared,  confessed  the  language  alleged,  promised  amend- 
ment, and  was  discharged  on  payment  of  costs.3 

While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  conduct  which  caused 
this  legislation  must  have  been  most  exasperating  to  the 
majority  of  ministers  and  magistrates,  yet  it  is  equally  beyond 
doubt  that  both  the  appeal  to  the  legislature  and  the  law  of 
1742  were  mistakes.  Had  the  ministry  been  content  to  pos- 
sess their  souls  in  patience,  the  evil  fire  would  soon  have 
burned  itself  out.  The  measures  taken  added  to  the  trouble 
and  made  a  distinctly  backward  step  in  toleration ;  while  the 

1  Records,  VIII,  483.    Davenport  had  previously  been  tried  in  Massachu- 
setts and  sent  out  of  the  colony.    Palfrey,  IV,  93. 

2  Records,  VIII,  566  ;  IX,  28.  »  Ibid.,  VIII,  519  ;    IX,  20. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  275 

members  of  dissenting  Churches,  which  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  disturbances, — unless  it  may  be  that  some  individual 
Episcopalians   and   Baptists   joined   their  neighbors   of  the 
establishment  in  this  resort  to  government, — were  made  the 
chief  sufferers  by  the  action.     For  in  1743  the  general  court, 
as  though  the  inroad  of  intrusive  itinerants  had  been  the 
work  of  dissenters  and  the  product  of  its  acts  of  toleration, 
repealed  the  act  of  1708  "for  the  Ease  of  such  as  Soberly  New  law  of 
Dissent,"  and  substituted  for  it  another  law,  according  a  far  dlssent- 
less  degree  of  liberty.1 

The  new  law  defined  that  "  any  of  His  Majesty's  subjects, 
being  protestants,  inhabitants  of  this  colony,  that  shall  soberly 
dissent  from  the  way  of  worship  and  ministry  established  by 
the  laws  of  this  colony  .  .  .  may  apply  themselves  to  this 
Assembly  for  relief  .  .  .  (and)  may  expect  the  indulgence  of 
this  Assembly,  having  first  before  this  Assembly  taken  the 
oaths  and  subscribed  the  declaration2  provided  by  Act  of 
Parliament  in  cases  of  the  like  nature." 

The  narrow  and  crippling  nature  of  this  statute  is  evident 
at  a  glance,  when  compared  with  the  law  of  1708.  That  law 
put  no  vexatious  or  doubtful  obstacles  in  the  way  of  dissenters. 
It  was  general  and  prescribed  comparatively  easy  rules,  under 
which  any  dissenting  congregation,  complying  therewith, 
could  demand  from  their  own  county  court  recognition  of 
their  rights  to  organization  and  worship.  The  new  act  took 
away  this  ease  and  liberty,  and  hampered  the  dissenters  with 
rules  in  many  possible  cases  difficult  of  observance.  It  does 
not  appear  that  dissenting  Churches  already  organized  were 
necessarily  affected  by  the  statute,  but  the  formation  of 
others  was  made  vexatiously  difficult.  In  place  of  their  own 
county  court,  the  legislature  was  made  the  constituting 
authority.  Dissenters  applying,  though  living  at  the  ends  of 
the  colony,  must  appear  in  person  at  Hartford,  in  order  to 
take  the  oath  "before  this  Assembly."  The  right  of  organi- 

1  Becords,  VIII,  522  ;  Palfrey,  IV,  112-118. 

2  Against  transubstantiation. 


276  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

zation  was  changed  to  a  favor,  which,  though  the  applicants 
were  bidden  to  "expect  the  indulgence"  of  the  assembly, 
might  be  denied  on  any  caprice.  In  place  of  the  general  law 
covering  all  cases,  the  new  statute  becomes  particular,  com- 
pelling a  request  for  legislative  action  in  every  individual 
case. 

While  this  comparison  of  the  two  laws  shows  the  retrograde 
movement  noted,  at  the  same  time  we  may  not  fail  to  observe 
what  goes  far  toward  justifying  the  legislature,  that  by  the 
act  of  1743  dissenting  Churches  were  put  on  a  level  with 
those  of  the  establishment.  No  Congregational  Church  could 
be  organized  without  an  express  act  of  the  general  court,  so 
that  in  fact  between  1708  and  1743,  the  dissenters  had  a 
larger  liberty  than  members  of  the  establishment  in  matters 
of  organization.  Though  they  were  crippled  by  the  new  law, 
they  were  no  worse  off  than  their  Congregational  neighbors, 
save  as  respects  the  requirement  of  personal  appearance  before 
the  legislature. 

Another  feature  of  the  act  of  1743  introduced  an  entirely 
new  element  in  Connecticut  legislation.  This  is  the  clause, 
"  being  protestants,"  the  effect  of  which  was  to  deny  tolera- 
Romanists.  tion  to  Romanists.  Under  the  statute  no  room  was  made  for 
Roman  Catholic  Churches.  This  is  the  first  instance  in  which 
the  laws  of  the  colony  recognized  the  distinction  between 
Protestant  and  Romanist.  The  explanation  of  its  absence 
from  former  legislation  is  undoubtedly  the  fact,  that  no 
Romanist  had  settled  in  the  colony  in  the  past  years,  and  no 
occasion  was  given  for  anti-Roman  enactments.  Nor  does  it 
appear  that  any  of  the  Roman  Church  were  in  Connecticut 
in  1743  in  sufficient  numbers  to  cause  any  alarm.  The  form 
and  phrases  of  the  statute,  with  its  reference  to  the  king, 
parliament,  and  oaths,  suggest  that  the  committee  which 
drew  the  bill  had  in  mind  English  toleration,  and  that 
thus  the  words,  "being  protestants,"  together  with  the 
requirement  of  the  oath,  crept  into  the  statute  without  any 
special  intention  of  emphasis.  At  the  same  time  one  cannot 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  277 

altogether  avoid  regret  that  the  usually  tolerant  Connecticut 
should  even,  by  indirection,  appear  to  have  ever  joined  in 
the  insane  cry  of  "  No  Popery." 

Another  law  of  1743  cannot  be  so  easily  excused.  This  is 
an  "Act  providing  Relief  against  the  evil  and  dangerous 
Designs  of  Foreigners  and  Suspected  Persons."1  The  best 
that  can  be  said  for  it  is  that,  though  it  had  a  decided  bearing 
on  religious  matters,  yet  the  evident  motive  of  the  act  was 
political.  It  was  directed  against  the  Moravians,  who  were  Moravians, 
engaged  in  teaching  the  Indians  of  the  Housatonic  Valley  at 
Sharon  and  Kent.  Their  work  had  extended  also  across  the 
border  into  Dutchess  County,  New  York,  and  in  this  same 
year  brought  upon  them  the  expulsive  action  of  the  New 
York  assembly.  In  both  colonies  ignorant  prejudice  and 
irrational  fear  of  the  French  had  more  to  do  with  the  actions 
against  them  than  any  religious  considerations.  Though 
their  work  was  clearly  of  the  most  humane  and  Christian 
character,  it  was  whispered  that  they  were  Jesuits  in  the 
interest  of  the  French  of  Canada,  affecting  the  minds  of  their 
Indian  pupils  against  the  English.  This  was  enough  to 
excite  the  alarm  of  the  surrounding  community,  and  to  for- 
ward complaints  to  the  general  court. 

The  preaching  and  teaching  also  were  objected  to  as  a  vio- 
lation of  the  law  of  1742  against  intrusion,  though  it  does  not 
appear  that  they  were  at  all  guilty  of  the  intrusion  defined  in 
the  law,  as  they  labored  only  among  the  Indians,  attempting 
no  interference  in  any  parish.  Such  intrusion,  indeed,  was 
impossible  to  their  foreign  tongue.  Perhaps  this  latter  fact 
may  suggest  that  the  legislature  thought  the  law  of  1742  not 
sufficient  to  cover  the  case  and  caused  the  new  act,  the  title 
of  which  has  just  been  recited.  The  act  described  "  foreigners 
and  suspected  persons  who  sow  and  spread  false  and  dangerous 
doctrines  of  religion  amongst  us,  to  stir  up  discord,  to  estrange 
the  minds  of  the  Indians  from  us,"  and  ordered  that  all  such 
suspected  persons  "  be  arrested  and  taken  before  the  Governor, 

i  Records,  VIII,  521. 


278  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

who  shall  use  such  meanes  as  may  be  proper  "  to  protect  the 
colony  from  danger. 

1  Under  this  law  three  of  the  Moravians  —  Mack,  Shaw,  and 
Pyrlaens,  a  highly  educated  minister — were  arrested  and  exam- 
ined by  the  county  court  at  New  Milford.  They  were  not 
able  to  satisfy  the  court,  and  were  bound  over  to  appear 
before  the  governor.  Governor  Law  examined  them  three 
times,  and  easily  satisfied  himself  that  they  were  not  French 
spies,  but  doubted  whether  they  might  be  teachers  of  "  false 
and  dangerous  doctrine."  Mack  gave  bonds  not  to  preach  in 
any  parish  without  permission.  The  protest  of  Count  Zinzen- 
dorf  will  be  found  related  in  our  story  of  New  York,  as  also 
the  protection  of  the  British  government,  which  described  the 
Moravians  as  "  brethren  introduced  to  the  colonies  by  Parlia- 
ment as  members  of  an  ancient  Protestant  Episcopal  Church." 
This  did  not  satisfy  the  people,  who  complained  that  "  parlia- 
mentary interference  was  becoming  offensive,  and  that  there 
were  too  many  Episcopalians  in  Connecticut  already."  The 
final  result  was  that  the  godly  work  of  Moravians  in  the 
colony  and  in  New  York  was  broken  up,  and  the  teachers 
forced  to  seek  refuge  in  Pennsylvania,  whither  many  of  their 
pupils  followed  them. 

After  this  almost  tragic  incident,  one  of  the  darkest  blots 
on  Connecticut  colonial  legislation,  the  records  contain  few 
matters  calling  for  present  remark.  To  the  end  of  the  period, 
and  after,  the  assembly  held  fast  to  its  principles  of  ecclesi- 
astical control.  Churches  of  the  establishment  still  looked 
to  the  legislature  for  organization  and  support,  and  dissenters 
for  any  desired  relief  or  exemption ;  while  in  the  exercise  of 
its  ecclesiastical  functions  the  assembly  showed  a  return  to 
its  former  readiness  for  liberality.  Sundry  illustrations  of 
both  these  features  may  properly  be  noted. 

Separates.          The  "Separates,"  —  the  "New  Lights,"  —  who  had  with- 
drawn from  the  regular  Churches  and  formed  separate  Con- 

1  Dr.  Andrews,  American  Church  Review^  1880 ;  Article,  Moravians  in 
the  Housatonic  Valley. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  279 

gregational  Churches,  were  granted  liberty.1  Those  at 
Milford  were  in  1750  allowed  to  organize,  and  to  be  exempted 
from  regular  Church  rates,  "  so  long  as  they  shall  regularly 
attend  the  worship  of  God  in  said  separate  congregation." 
In  1760  this  Separate  Church  was  transformed  into  a  Presby- 
terian Church  by  act  of  assembly.  In  1751  the  First  Church 
of  New  Haven  fell  into  dissension,  and  the  assembly  inter- 
fered for  peace.2  In  1757  the  Baptists  of  Enfield  were  ex- 
empted from  Church  rates.3  Between  1751  and  1772  sixty 
Churches  were  organized  by  the  legislature,  and  many  "  win- 
ter privileges  "  were  granted.4  (A  winter  privilege  allowed 
a  portion  of  a  parish,  so  distant  from  the  Church  as  to  make 
attendance  difficult  in  that  season,  to  employ  a  minister  for 
themselves  during  the  winter.5)  In  1767  the  second  Church 
of  Lyme  was  reported  to  the  assembly  as  without  a  minister 
for  several  years.  The  information  came  from  the  New  Lon- 
don association,  and  the  assembly  appointed  a  committee  to 
visit  Lyme  and  report.  The  most  remarkable  action  of  the 
legislature  on  the  subject  of  religion,  not  only  during  this 
immediate  period,  but  in  its  entire  annals,  was  an  order,  made 
at  the  instance  of  the  English  government,  that  "the  Form 
of  Prayer  for  the  Royal  Family  "  (from  the  English  prayer-  Prayer  for 
book)  be  published  and  read  in  all  the  Churches ! 6  This  the  kins- 
action  was  taken  in  1751,  a  signal  illustration  of  Connecticut 
liberality  and  complaisance. 

This  may  suffice  for  the  narrative  of  colonial  Connecticut 
in  its  relation  to  the  Church.  Clearly,  it  occupied  a  middle 
ground  between  theocratic  Massachusetts  and  free  Rhode 
Island.  Its  distinguishing  features  were  an  insistence  on 
governmental  control,  with  as  large  a  liberty  as  that  ideal 
would  permit.  When  an  unaccustomed  impulse  to  repress 
any  dissent  took  momentary  possession,  the  reserve  of  good 
and  liberal  sense  made  legislation  fall  far  short  of  genuine 

1  Records,  IX,  517  ;  XI,  402  ;  Johnston,  History  of  Connecticut,  p.  243. 

2  Ibid.,  X,  43.  4  Ibid.,  X,  XI,  XII,  XIII.  6  Ibid.,  X,  65. 
8  Ibid. ,  XI,  54.            6  Ibid. ,  XII,  638. 


280  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

persecution,  while  the  impulse  quickly  passed.  Confidently 
it  may  be  said  that,  among  the  establishments  of  the  colonies 
that  of  Connecticut  was  by  far  the  best.  The  absence  of  the 
theocratic  ideal  prevented  both  that  arrogance  of  the  minis- 
try, under  -which  Massachusetts  suffered,  and  the  assumption 
that  the  state  was  a  mere  servant  of  the  Church.  Begun 
under  the  fostering  care  of  the  broad-minded  Hooker,  the 
colony  for  the  most  part  guided  itself  by  his  principles,  and 
was  fully  ready  in  feeling  for  the  changes  of  the  Revolution, 
though  some  details  of  form  remained  for  forty  years  there- 
after. 


IV.    The  New  Haven  Theocracy 

The  short-lived  effort  of  the  New  Haven  colony  labored  to 
establish  a  theocracy  even  more  strict  than  that  of  Massachu- 
setts, in  which  every  public  utterance  and  action  was  to  be 
guided  by,  and  an  expression  of,  the  divine  law.  Its  civil 
leader  for  many  years  was  Theophilus  Eaton,  one  of  a  com- 
pany of  English  merchants,  rich  and  educated,  who  with 
decided  Puritan  principles  associated  themselves  together  to 
follow  the  Massachusetts  colony  into  the  new  world.  Their 
spiritual  guide  was  John  Davenport,  a  friend  of  Hooker  and 
Cotton,  settled  in  a  London  parish  at  the  time  of  their  emi- 
gration and  at  that  time  out  of  sympathy  with  their  motives. 
A  man  of  great  mental  force  and  of  high  moral  education, 
and  withal  of  great  eloquence  as  a  preacher,  not  long  after 
the  departure  of  his  friends  from  England,  he  found  reason 
to  change  his  opinions  and  soon  drew  upon  himself  the  hostil- 
ity of  Archbishop  Laud.  He  fled  to  Amsterdam,  whence  in 
1636  he  returned  to  join  Eaton  and  his  companions  in  their 
American  venture. 

In  the  latter  part  of  that  year  the  company  arrived  at  Bos- 
At  Boston,  ton,  in  the  very  height  of  the  antinomiari  controversy.  The 
air  was  full  of  contest.  Roger  Williams  had  just  been  ban- 
ished, and  the  mind  of  the  ministry  and  magistracy  was  evi- 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  281 

dently  bent  on  excluding  Mrs.  Hutchinson  and  silencing  her 
adherents.  On  points  of  doctrine  involved  Davenport  and 
Eaton  were  in  full  accord  with  the  authorities  at  the  Bay, 
but  were  affected  against  settlement  there  by  the  universal 
strife.  It  is  probable  that  their  original  intention  had  been 
to  join  themselves  to  the  Massachusetts  colony,  and  that  the 
strife  at  Boston  moved  them  to  attempt  a  new  settlement, 
desiring  to  found  it  in  peace  and  without  the  presence  of  dis- 
turbing elements.  So  they  set  themselves  to  discover  a  place 
of  habitation  which  should  be  their  own.  Winthrop  wrote,1 
"Mr.  Eaton  and  some  others  of  Mr.  Davenport's  company 
went  to  view  Quinepiack,  with  intent  to  begin  a  plantation 
there ; "  and,  after  the  new  colony  had  left  Boston,  "  all  pos- 
sible means  had  been  used  to  accommodate  them.  They  had 
many  offers:  Charlestown  offered  largely,  Newbury  their 
whole  town,  the  Court  any  place  which  was  free." 

In  1638  Eaton,  Davenport,  and  their  companions  left  Bos- 
ton, settled  about  the  bay  which  receives  the  Quinnipiac,  and 
founded  the  colony  and  city  of  New  Haven.2  Never,  not 
even  among  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts,  was  made  another 
so  religious  foundation.  On  the  4th  of  June,  1639,3  was 
held  their  first  "general  meeting  to  consult  about  settling 
their  civil  Government  according  to  God  .  .  .  for  the  estab- 
lishing of  such  civil  order  as  might  be  most  pleasing  to  God, 
and  for  the  choosing  the  fittest  men  for  the  foundation  work 
of  a  Church  to  be  gathered."  At  this  meeting  it  was  voted, 
"  no  man  dissenting,"  that  "  the  Scriptures  do  hold  forth  a 
perfect  rule  for  the  direction  and  government  of  all  men 
in  all  duties,  which  they  are  to  perform  to  God  and  men,  as 
well  in  the  government  of  families  and  commonwealths  as  in 
matters  of  the  Church." 

With  this  as  the  cardinal  principle  to  be  observed  in  all 
arrangements,  they  proceeded  to  enter  into  a  "  Fundamental 

1  Journal,  I,  237,  259. 

2  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  357. 
8  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  anno  1639. 


282  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Agreement1  —  a  covenant  solemnly  made  by  the  whole  as- 
sembly :  1st,  that  the  Word  of  God  shall  be  the  only  Rule 
Constitu-  attended  unto  in  ordering  the  affairs  of  government ;  "  2d, 
that  they  should  "  cast  themselves  into  that  mould  and  form 
of  commonwealth  which  appeareth  best,  in  reference  to  the 
securing  of  the  pure  and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  all  Christ 
His  ordinances  in  the  Church  according  to  God " ;  and  3d 
(twice  voted  in  this  one  meeting),  "that  the  free  burgesses 
shall  be  chosen  from  Church  members,  and  they  only  shall 
choose  magistrates  and  officers  among  themselves  to  have  the 
power  of  transacting  all  public  civil  affairs  of  the  Plantation." 
It  was  then  ordered  "  that  all  hereafter  received  as  planters 
shall  submit  to  this  fundamental  agreement." 

Having  thus  outlined  their  principle  of  civil  government, 
they  turned  to  ecclesiastical  matters  and  chose  "  Seven  Pil- 
lars "  to  be  the  governors  of  the  Church,  both  the  title  and 
number  of  these  officers  being  suggested  by  Mr.  Davenport 
from  Proverbs  ix.  1.  "  Wisdom  hath  builded  her  house ;  she 
Seven  hath  hewn  out  her  seven  pillars."  These  seven  pillars,  thus 

pillars.  primarily  appointed  to  a  spiritual  office,  seem  to  have  been 
vested  also  with  a  supreme  civil  function  ;  for  in  October  of 
the  same  year  they  "  chose  a  chief  magistrate  or  Governor, 
and  four  deputies  to  assist  in  public  affairs."  The  governor 
then  elected  was  Theophilus  Eaton,  who  was  reflected  for 
many  successive  years.  This  first  election  was  regarded  as 
a  thing  of  great  solemnity  and  was  preceded  by  a  sermon  by 
Mr.  Davenport,  "  opening  two  scriptures,  Deut.  i.  13,  and 
Ex.  xviii.  21  " ;  the  advice  of  Jethro  to  Moses,  "  Provide  out 
of  all  the  people  able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of  truth 
...  to  be  rulers ;  "  and  Moses'  command,  "  Take  you  wise 
men,  and  understanding,  and  known  among  your  tribes,  and 
I  will  make  them  rulers  over  you." 

Presently,  the  "  General  Court "  was  established,  consist- 
ing at  first  only  of  the  governor  and  four  deputies,  but  in- 
creased in  number  by  the  settlement  of  other  towns.  It 

1  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  I,  17. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  283 

was  formally  resolved,  "  that  the  Duty  of  the  general  court  Religious 
was:  1st,  To  provide  for  the  maintenance  of  the  purity  of  functionof 

J  government. 

religion,  and  to  suppress  the  contrary ;  2d,  To  declare,  pub- 
lish, and  establish  ...  the  laws  for  holiness  and  righteous- 
ness which  God  hath  made  and  given  to  us  in  the  Scriptures." 

So  closely  did  the  men  of  the  new  colony  adhere  to  the 
idea  of  a  government  directly  controlled,  as  was  that  of  an- 
cient Israel,  by  God  Himself.1  The  endeavor  was  to  revive 
the  old  Mosaic  forms;  and  Davenport,  whose  moulding  hand 
is  seen  throughout,  even  went  so  far  as  to  put  himself  in  the 
place  of  the  great  Law-giver,  when  he  said  to  the  governor, 
"  The  cause  that  is  too  hard  for  you,  bring  it  to  me  and  I 
will  hear  it."  Certainly,  Davenport  looked  upon  the  work 
as  very  good,  writing  in  1639  to  Lady  Vere, 2  "The  Lord 
our  God  hath  here  bestowed  upon  us  the  greatest  outward 
privilege  under  the  sun,  to  have  and  enjoy  all  His  ordinances 
purely  dispensed  in  a  Church  gathered  and  constituted  ac- 
cording to  his  owne  minde."  The  author  of  the  Wonder- 
working Providence  of  Zion's  Saviour  3  was  no  less  delighted, 
writing:  "This  government  of  New  Haven,  although  the 
younger  of  the  foure,  yet  was  she  as  beautifull  as  any  of  this 
broode  of  travellers  and  most  minding  the  end  of  her  coming 
hither,  to  keep  close  to  the  rule  of  Christ  both  in  Doctrine 
and  Discipline;  and  it  were  to  be  wished  her  elder  Sister4 
would  followe  her  example." 

It  would  be  difficult  in  a  commonwealth  so  constituted  to 
draw  the  line  between  Church  and  State.  Evidently  the 
founders  considered  the  two  as  identical.  Those  of  their  unity  of 
number  who  afterward  crossed  the  sound  and  settled  on 
Long  Island,  the  eastern  part  of  which  for  years  was  under 
the  jurisdiction,  first  of  New  Haven  and  afterward  of  Con- 
necticut, illustrated  the  same  principle  in  the  organization  of 

1  Johnston,  History  of  Connecticut,  p.  98. 

2  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  II,  228. 
8  Force,  Historical  Tracts. 

*  Connecticut. 


284  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

their  towns.  Thus  "  the  early  history  of  Southold  discloses 
no  polity  or  discipline  of  the  Church  apart  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  town." l  The  entire  organization  of  colony  and 
towns  was  strictly  religious,  beyond  anything  in  history  since 
the  foundations  of  Israel.  The  power  of  the  clergy  was  su- 
preme. The  seven  pillars  of  the  New  Haven  Church  not 
only  chose  the  colonial  governor,  but  were  the  magistrates 
of  the  town.  The  same  religious  magistracy  was  constituted 
in  the  other  towns,  as  the  colony  expanded;  and  these 
magistrates  judged  all  causes  without  the  intervention  of  a 
jury.  A  jury  was  out  of  place  in  early  New  Haven,  because 
there  was  no  trace  of  such  an  institution  in  the  Mosaic  code. 
That  code  was  the  foundation  of  all  law,  and  any  crime  pun- 
ishable by  death  under  the  old  Hebrew  law  was  made  capital 
"Blue  in  New  Haven.2  The  famous  "Blue  Laws"  of  Connecticut 

and  New  Haven  were  a  fiction  of  Samuel  Peters  in  1681,  to 
satirize  the  severity  of  colonial  statutes ;  but  while  they  con- 
tained some  pretended  laws  of  a  ridiculous  character,  it 
cannot  be  said  that  the  spirit  of  them  was  much  harsher  than 
some  enactments  of  the  New  Haven  legislature. 

The  general  court  at  its  first  session  in  November,  1639, 3 
true  to  its  religious  mission,  and  regarding  the  matter  as  of 
the  first  religious  moment,  took  order  for  building  a  meeting- 
house, which  was  to  be  fifty  feet  square  and  to  cost  <£500. 
All  inhabitants  were  to  be  called  on  for  voluntary  pledges  to 
support  the  Church.  If  any  person  refused,  he  should  be 
assessed  by  the  magistrates ;  and  if  payment  were  delayed, 
collection  was  to  be  made  "  as  for  debt."  No  other  Churches 
could  be  organized,  except  on  approval  of  the  magistrates 
and  elders.  No  person,  not  a  Church-member,  could  be  ad- 
mitted as  a  freeman  of  the  colony.  Absentees  from  Church 

1  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  II,  22. 

2  There  were  nineteen  capital  offences.     This  seems  many,  but  in  England 
so  late  as  1819  there  were  two  hundred  and  twenty-three  !    Johnston,  History 
of  Connecticut,  p.  106. 

3  New  Haven  Colonial  Records,  anno  1639. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  285 

service  were  to  be  fined  five  shillings.  "If  any  Christian 
(so-called)  behave  himself  contemptuously  toward  the  Word 
or  the  Minister,"  he  was  to  be  punished  in  the  discretion  of 
the  magistrates,  according  to  the  gravity  of  the  offence.  The 
punishment  of  heresy  was  also  left  to  this  magisterial  discre- 
tion, and  might  be  by  fine,  banishment,  or  "  otherwise."  In 
order  to  protect  the  colony  from  improper  additions,  no 
stranger  could  be  permitted  to  remain  without  special  license 
from  the  magistrate,  a  rule  similar  to  the  domicile  act  of 
Massachusetts.1 

In  1643  New  Haven  entered  into  the  New  England  Con-  New  Eng- 
federacy  with  Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  and  Connecticut,  of  land  Con- 
which  sufficient  has  been  noted  in  the  sketches  of  the  other 
colonies.      But   already   another   "  combination "   had   been 
formed  of  much  greater  importance  to  New  Haven.     This 
was  the  merging  into  one  "  jurisdiction  "  with  New  Haven, 
Stamford,   Guilford,   and    Yennicook.      The    peculiarity   of  tion<" 
this  combination  will  be  noted  as  something  unique  in  colo- 

1  These  laws  are  found  grouped  together  in  the  Record  under  title  of 
Colonial  Laws. 

A  few  notes  of  legislative  and  judicial  action  will  illustrate  both  the  reli- 
gious character  and  the  particularity  of  the  government.  (These  items  are 
in  the  Eecord  under  years  noted.)  In  1640  George  Spencer,  being  «« profane 
and  disorderly  in  his  whole  conversation,  and  an  abettor  of  others  to  sin," 
was  whipped  and  banished.  Two  years  afterward  he  returned  and  was 
hanged  for  gross  immorality.  In  1640  ' '  Thomas  Chambers  being  accused  of 
scoffing  at  religion,  it  not  being  sufficiently  proved,  he  was  dismissed  only 
with  an  admonition  and  caution."  In  the  same  year,  "Hen.  Akerlye  was 
rebuked  for  building  a  cellar  and  selling  it  without  leave."  In  1643  is  the 
record  that  "  Goodman  Hunt  and  his  wife,  for  keeping  the  counsel  of  William 
Harding  (a  very  lewd  person  who  was  whipped),  baking  him  a  pasty  and 
plum  cakes,  and  keeping  company  with  him  on  the  Lord's  Day ;  and  she  suffer- 
ing Harding  to  kiss  her,  .  .  .were  ordered  to  be  sent  out  of  this  town  within 
one  month."  A  pleasanter  entry  is  that  of  1640 :  "  Ordered,  that  our  pastor 
shall  have  his  farm  where  he  desires  it,  with  all  the  conveniences  of  upland 
and  meadow  and  creeks,  which  the  place  where  he  pitches  shall  afford, 
though  above  his  proportion,  according  to  his  desire."  This  showed  their 
regard  for  the  parson  ;  and  in  1643  they  exhibited  their  care  for  the  meeting- 
house, in  ordering  that,  "  Sister  Preston  shall  sweep  and  dress  the  meeting- 
house every  week,  and  have  one  shilling  a  week  for  her  pains." 


286  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

nial  action.  In  the  other  colonies,  other  settlements  springing 
up  within  the  territory  of  the  original  plantation  became  at 
once,  without  special  action,  integral  members  of  the  colony 
or  commonwealth.  With  New  Haven  the  case  was  different. 
Eaton  and  Davenport  located  their  company  on  land  outside 
of  the  other  colonies  and  without  a  patent  of  their  own, 
though  their  settlement  infringed  on  the  patent  of  Lords 
Brooke  and  Say  and  Sele.  They  claimed  no  territory 
beyond  the  lands  immediately  occupied  by  themselves.  So 
when  the  towns  of  Guilford  and  Stamford  were  settled,  each 
began  as  an  independent  settlement,  under  no  other  jurisdic- 
tion than  that  of  the  king.  It  very  soon  became  apparent 
that  such  independence  was  not  desirable,  and  that  the  towns 
should  combine  together  under  one  colonial  government. 
This  took  place  accordingly,  under  the  name  of  the  first  set- 
tled town,  New  Haven. 

The  advantages  of  this  union  were  so  obvious  that  in  1643 
Milford.  Milford  desired  admittance  to  the  union,  but  on  the  applica- 
tion coming  before  the  general  court  of  the  enlarged  "  juris- 
diction "  it  was  objected  that  Milford  had  six  freemen,  who 
were  not  Church-members.1  This  objection  Milford  met  with 
the  proposal  of  a  compromise  to  the  effect:  1st,  that  none  of 
the  six  should  be  chosen  for  any  office  of  the  "  combination," 
nor  vote  in  the  election  of  magistrates  of  the  combination ; 
2d,  that  hereafter  none  but  Church-members  should  be 
admitted  freemen  of  Milford ;  but  3d,  the  six  were  to  have 
liberty  to  act  in  town  business  wherein  the  combination  was 
not  interested,  and  to  vote  for  deputies  to  the  general  court, 
who  should  always  be  members  of  the  Church.  On  this  prop- 
osition Milford  was  admitted  by  a  vote  of  the  general  court, 
"  not  foreseeing  any  danger  in  yielding  to  Milford  with  the 
aforesaid  cautions." 

But  the  settlement  of  so  important  a  matter  was  not  to  be 
left  to  the  terms  of  a  compromise,  and  at  the  first  meeting 
of  the  general  court  after  the  admission  of  Milford,  the 

1  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  617,  521. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  287 

"  Fundamental  Agreement "  was  formally  and  solemnly  re- 
adopted  as  binding  upon  all.  In  the  next  year,  the  code 
already  enacted  in  New  Haven  was  made  that  of  the  entire 
jurisdiction,  the  general  court  enacting :  "  That  the  judicial 
laws  of  God,  as  they  were  delivered  by  Moses,  and  as  they 
are  a  fence  to  the  moral  law,  being  neither  typical  nor  cere- 
monial, nor  had  any  reference  to  Canaan,  shall  be  accounted 
of  moral  equity  and  generally  bind  all  offenders,  and  be  a  rule 
to  all  the  courts  in  this  jurisdiction  in  their  proceedings 
against  offenders,  till  they  be  branched  out  into  particulars 
hereafter." 

The  only  occasion  for  the  exhibition  of  a  persecuting  spirit 
was  furnished  by  the  Quakers.  There  is  no  reason  to  sup-  Quakers, 
pose  that  the  pure  theocracy  of  New  Haven  would  have 
shown  much  tolerance  for  dissent  from  the  established 
Church,  or  have  suffered  a  Roman  Catholic  to  remain  in  the 
colony.  But  with  such  the  Records  do  not  show  the  govern- 
ment to  have  been  tried.  But  the  Quaker  alarm  woke  New 
Haven  to  a  frenzy  only  second  to  that  of  Massachusetts.  In 
1656  the  rumor  of  the  sect's  approach  brought  out  the  law 
that  "  Quakers  shall  not  be  suffered  in  this  jurisdiction." 
Then  the  court  was  silent  on  the  subject  for  two  years. 

Meanwhile  some  of  the  sect  had  ventured  into  the  colony, 
and  the  general  court  in  1658  delivered  itself  of  a  batch  of 
laws,  not  a  whit  less  severe  than  those  of  the  Bay,  except 
in  the  item  of  capital  punishment.  Death  was  not  among 
the  penalties,  but  the  enactments  were  sufficiently  indicative 
of  a  frantic  and  intolerant  state  of  mind.  The  law  declared 
that  "  whoso  shall  bring  Quakers,  or  other  blasphemous  here- 
ticks,  into  this  jurisdiction  shall  forfeit  the  sum  of  £50."  If 
any  Quaker  should  come  on  business,  he  might  be  allowed  to 
despatch  it,  attended  by  a  guard,  and  was  to  be  put  out  of  the 
jurisdiction  when  the  business  was  concluded.  If  he  refused 
the  guard,  or  attempted  communication  with  the  people,  he 
was  to  be  imprisoned,  severely  whipped,  and  kept  at  work 
for  a  term  discretionary  with  the  magistrate.  If  a  Quaker, 


288 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


having  once  suffered  under  this  law,  should  come  again,  he 
was  to  be  branded  with  the  letter  "  H "  on  the  hand  and 
jailed.  For  a  third  offence  the  other  hand  should  be  branded, 
and  the  fourth  offence  was  to  be  punished  by  boring  the 
tongue  with  a  hot  iron.  Quakers  "  arising  from  among  our- 
selves "  were  to  be  treated  as  foreign  Quakers.  Any  person 
bringing  Quaker  books  was  fined  <£5.  Entertainment  or  con- 
cealment of  a  Quaker  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of  twenty 
shillings  for  every  hour's  entertainment  or  concealment. 
Any  person  defending  the  opinions  of  the  Quakers  should  be 
fined  for  the  first  offence,  £2 ;  for  the  second  offence,  £4; 
and  for  the  third  offence,  he  should  be  imprisoned  until  it 
was  convenient  to  send  him  out  of  the  colony.  "Lastly," 
whoso  reviled  magistrates  or  ministers,  "  as  it  is  usual  with 
Quakers,"  should  be  whipped  or  pay  the  sum  of  <£5. 

Under  this  comprehensive  law  a  number  of  Quakers,  some 
foreigners  and  others,  who  had  "  turned  Quakers,"  were  pros- 
ecuted, whipped,  imprisoned,  and  banished.  But  they  were 
not  many.  Nor  did  many  of  the  sect  come  into  the  colony ; 
we  may  suppose,  because  of  the  greater  attractions  of  New 
York  and  Boston,  in  the  way  of  persecution. 

Soon  after  this  experience  with  the  Quakers,  began  the 
movement  which  resulted  in  the  loss  of  individual  colonial 
existence,  when  New  Haven  was  absorbed  by  Connecticut. 
As  in  Massachusetts,  so  in  New  Haven,  there  had  grown  a 

Suffrage.  large  party  dissatisfied  with  the  restriction  of  the  franchise. 
A  considerable  number  of  the  men  were  not  members  of  the 
Church,  and  consequently  were  not  allowed  to  vote,  though 

Discontent,  taxed  for  purposes  of  both  Church  and  State.  They  could 
not  fail  to  contrast  this  exclusion  from  citizenship  with  the 
larger  liberty  of  the  neighboring  colony,  where  personal 
character  and  taxable  capacity  were  the  conditions  for  the 
suffrage.  The  stricter  element  in  New  Haven  considered  the 
government  of  Connecticut  a  "  Christless  rule,"  but  were  out- 
numbered by  the  party  for  union,  which  was  composed  not 
only  of  the  non-members  of  the  Church,  but  also  of  many 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  289 

among  those  who  were  Church-members  of  a  more  liberal 
mind. 

To  Connecticut  the  annexing  of  the  little  colony  of  New  union  with 
Haven  was  a  very  desirable  thing,  as  giving  a  natural  boun-  Connecticut, 
dary  and  adding  to  the  colony's  population  and  resources. 
Thus,  when  Governor  Winthrop  applied  to  the  king  for  a 
charter,  the  southern  limit  sought  was  the  line  of  the  sound 
from  New  Amsterdam  to  Rhode  Island.  We  do  not  find  that 
any  formal  resistance  by  New  Haven  to  the  project  was  made 
in  London.  "  Many  of  the  people  were  very  willing  for  the 
junction.  Mr.  Davenport  preached  to  them  from  Judges 
xxi.  3  (O  Lord  God  of  Israel,  why  is  this  come  to  pass  in 
Israel,  that  there  should  be  to-day  one  tribe  lacking  in  Is- 
rael ?) ;  and  that  religion  might  better  adopt  the  controversie, 
they  fasted  the  people  on  the  known  presbyterian  plan."1 
But  this  opposition  did  not  reach  to  strenuous  protest  to  the 
king. 

Nor  is  it  probable  that,  had  such  been  made,  it  could  have 
had  any  influence  on  the  result.  For  the  king  had  a  grudge 
against  New  Haven,  the  one  of  the  colonies  which  had  given 
a  secure  refuge  to  the  regicides,  Goffe  and  Whalley.  Hardly  Regicides, 
were  the  festivities  of  the  Restoration  over,  when  Charles  set 
himself  to  revenge  his  father's  death.  The  body  of  Cromwell 
was  exhumed  from  Westminster  Abbey,2  and  those  of  the  dead 
judges  Bradshaw  and  Ireton  from  their  places  of  burial,  that 
their  heads  might  be  set  on  Westminster  Hall.  The  living 
judges  fled,  and  of  them  the  two  named  came  to  America,  find- 
ing in  New  Haven  shelter  and  concealment  from  all  the  search 
parties  sent  out  by  the  king.  This  was  remembered  against 
the  colony.  Indeed,  at  the  very  moment  of  Winthrop's  ap- 
plication New  Haven  was  shielding  the  fugitives,  and  it  is 
not  hard  to  imagine  the  king's  satisfaction  in  extinguishing 
the  independence  of  the  colony.3 

1  Connecticut  Historical  Society,  III,  328 ;  Roger  Wolcott,  Memorial  of 
Connecticut. 

2  Stanley,  Westminster  Abbey,  I,  223.  3  Palfrey,  II,  43, 

u 


290  KISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

On  the  union  with  Connecticut  —  a  union  accomplished, 
not  by  any  compromise  or  agreement  of  the  colonies,  but  by 
the  king's  order  —  all  the  peculiarities  of  New  Haven  ceased 
to  be.  Its  theocracy  fell,  the  laws  and  authority  of  Connect- 
icut took  the  place  of  its  own,  and  religious  profession  no 
longer  obtained  as  the  condition  of  citizenship.  Some  there 
were  who  could  not  content  themselves  to  remain  under  so 
changed  circumstances.  Davenport  removed  to  Boston  and 
succeeded  Norton  in  the  First  Church.1  Rev.  A.  Pierson 
with  his  people,  who  had  come  from  Southold  and  settled  at 
Branford,  took  themselves  to  New  Jersey  and  made  on  the 
Passaic  a  new  settlement,  which  they  called  New  Ark.  Their 
intent  was  to  raise  again  the  theocratic  standard,  "  to  restrict 
all  political  power  to  Church  members,"  and  so  once  more 
illustrate  what  they  considered  the  only  correct  principle  of 
a  pure  government.2  But  this  secession  was  but  small,  and 
the  most  of  the  New  Haven  people  easily  reconciled  them- 
selves to  being  lost  in  the  Church  and  Commonwealth  of 
Connecticut. 

V.     New  Hampshire 

The  first  settlers  of  New  Hampshire  were  exiles  for  con- 
science' sake.  As  with  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  the 
colony  owed  its  beginning  to  the  religious  intolerance  of 
the  Bay  Puritans.  John  Wheelwright,  banished  from  Massa- 
chusetts, repaired  with  a  number  of  friends  to  the  banks  of 
the  Piscataqua,  and  before  the  end  of  1638  the  exiles  were 
joined  by  a  sufficient  number  to  make  necessary  the  institu- 
Foundation.  tion  of  the  forms  of  government.3  They  had  bestowed  them- 
selves in  the  three  settlements  of  Exeter,  Hampton,  and 
Dover,  and  in  1639  associated  themselves  in  an  "Agreement" 
for  mutual  government  and  support.  The  preamble  to  this 

1  Felt,  II,  421. 

2  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  I,  6. 

3  Barstow,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  40-53 ;  New  Hampshire  Historical 
Society,  I,  321. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  291 

instrument,  after  asserting  the  subjection  of  the  plantations 
to  the  king,  proceeded :  "  We,  his  loyal  subjects  and  brethren 
of  the  Church  in  Exeter,  .  .  .  considering  the  holy  will  of 
God  and  our  own  necessity,  that  we  should  not  live  without 
wholesome  laws  and  civil  government  .  .  .  do,  in  the  name 
of  Christ  and  in  the  sight  of  God,  combine  ourselves  together 
to  erect  and  set  up  among  us  such  government  as  shall  be,  to 
our  best  discerning,  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  .  .  .  bind- 
ing ourselves  solemnly  by  the  grace  and  help  of  Christ,  and 
in  His  name  and  fear,  to  submit  ourselves  to  such  godly  and 
Christian  laws  as  are  established  in  the  realm  of  England  to 
our  best  knowledge,  and  to  all  other  such  lawes  which  shall, 
upon  good  grounds,  be  made  and  enacted  among  us  accord- 
ing to  God,  that  we  may  live  quietly  and  peaceably  together 
in  all  godliness  and  honesty." 

The  religious  foundation  of  the  new  commonwealth  was 
thus  very  positively  declared,  though  the  "  Christian  Lawes  " 
in  the  agreement  did  not  copy  the  strict  exclusiveness  of 
Massachusetts.  With  a  breadth  of  view  not  surprising  in 
men  who  had  gone  through  their  experience,  the  settlers  ad- 
mitted the  principle  that  civic  privileges  should  not  depend  Franchise. 
on  the  profession  of  religious  faith,  and  that  every  respect- 
able man  among  them  should  possess  the  franchise. 

The  breadth,  however,  had  limitations.  It  is  not  correct 
to  say  that  the  founders  intended  "  to  reject  in  toto  all  that 
regarded  the  hierarchy  and  Church  establishment." l  While 
there  was  no  attempt  to  institute  any  hierarchical  scrutiny 
and  oppression,  and  no  declaration  of  a  theocratical  design, 
yet  the  legislation  for  the  Church  and  the  system  of  tithes,  Religious 
assessed  and  collected  under  the  civil  law,  belong  to  the  idea 
of  a  religious  establishment. 

A  necessitous  concern  at  the  beginning  of  any  new  settle- 
ment, not  only  on  the  part  of  the  people  but  on  that  of  the 
civil  authorities,  was  a  provision  for  the  support  of  the 
Church:  and  in  old  grants  of  townships  it  was  the  usual 

1  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  VI,  173  ;  Address  of  Judson  Smith. 


292  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

custom  "to  reserve  one  share,  equal  to  that  of  any  other 
grantee,  for  the  first  settled  minister,  as  his  own  right ;  be- 
side a  parsonage  lot." 1  To  the  end  of  the  colonial  period, 
and  beyond  it,  the  government  exercised  authority  in  regard 
to  the  Church,  both  as  to  its  support  and  as  to  the  inroads  of 
sects  differing  from  the  established  order.  There  was  never, 
with  two  exceptions,  —  though  one  of  these,  as  the  act  of  the 
royal  governor,  can  hardly  be  cited  against  the  colony,  —  any 
attempt  at  persecution,  but  at  the  same  time  New  Hampshire 
was  as  fully  tenacious  of  the  legal  forms  of  civil  authority  in 
religious  matters  as  any  other  colony,  not  according  in  terms 
of  law  full  liberty  to  all  Christian  sects  until  1819.  What  is 
still  more  remarkable,  New  Hampshire  alone,  among  all  the 
states  of  the  American  Union,  retains  to  this  day  in  its  con- 
stitution the  old  distinctions  of  Protestant  and  Christian,  as 
against  Romanist,  Jew,  and  infidel,  out  of  which  in  former 
days  so  many  oppressions  arose. 

A  short  trial  of  the  infant  government  in  the  new  settle- 
Union  with    ment  disclosed   the  necessity  of   union  with  Massachusetts. 
Massachu-     AS  yet  New  Hampshire  was  too  feeble  to  stand  alone,  and 
the  union  was  formed  by  mutual  agreement  in  1641.     The 
agreement  contained  "  an  extraordinary  concession  "  by  Mas- 
sachusetts, that  the  franchise  in  New  Hampshire  should  not 
be  limited  to  Church  membership.     So  notable  a  departure 
from  the  Bay  policy  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  a  desire  to 
extend  colonial  boundaries.2 

From  the  time  of  the  union  until  1679  deputies  from  the 
New  Hampshire  towns  were  annually  elected  to  the  general 
court  of  Massachusetts,  and,  with  the  one  exception  noted, 
the  laws  of  the  latter  colony  obtained  in  both.  By  reason  of 
this  union  the  annals  of  New  Hampshire  were  stained  with 
the  single  record  of  persecution  which  can  be  charged  against 

1  Belknap,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  III,  324. 

2  One  immediate  result  of  this  union  was  the  removal  of  Wheelwright, 
who,  not  considering  himself  safe  in  the  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts,  with- 
drew to  Maine  and  began  the  settlement  of  Wells. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  293 

the  colony.  This  was  the  shameful  treatment  of  three 
Quaker  women  in  1659.1  Under  the  furious  law  of  Massa- 
chusetts the  women,  Anna  Colman,  Mary  Tompkins,  and 
Alice  Ambrose,  were  condemned  to  be  "  whipped  from  town 
to  town  out  of  the  province."  The  process  was  begun  at 
Dover,  whence  the  victims  were  driven  under  the  lash, 
"  through  dirt  and  snow  half-a-leg  deep,"  to  Hampton  and 
thence  to  Salisbury.  There  Walter  Barefoot,  a  magistrate, 
moved  by  shame  and  pity,  persuaded  the  constable  to  com- 
mit the  prisoners  to  him,  when  he  at  once  released  them. 
As  for  the  women,  they  returned  to  Dover  and  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  again  molested.2 

Meanwhile  the  colony  increased.  Other  towns  were  set- 
tled, chief  among  which  was  Portsmouth.  Here  the  first 
minister  was  Joshua  Moody,  destined  to  persecution  and 
celebrity.  By  an  ordinance  of  the  town,  "  to  encourage  him, 
those  who  slept,  or  took  tobacco  on  the  Lord's  day  during 
service,  were  doomed  to  the  cage."  3 

In  1679  the  union  with  Massachusetts  was  dissolved  by  union 
royal  order,  partly  because  of  the  growth  of  New  Hampshire,  dlssolved- 
but  more  because  of  the  king's  desire  to  cripple  and  annoy 
the  Bay  colony.  New  Hampshire  was  made  a  distinct  prov- 
ince under  the  royal  charter  or  "  Commission."  The  estab- 
lishment of  the  separate  government  was  under  the  same 
commissioners,  whose  errand  brought  so  much  disturbance 
to  other  New  England  colonies.  In  New  Hampshire  their 
offices  were  welcomed  by  the  people,  who  had  desired  inde- 
pendence on  the  Bay.  For  the  new  province  the  instruc- 
tions to  the  commissioners  in  regard  to  religious  matters  were 
identical  with  those  given  for  the  other  colonies,  viz. :  "  We 

1  Barstow,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  p.  73 ;   McClintock,  History  of 
New  Hampshire,  p.  59  ;  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  I,  226-243. 

2  Barefoot  was  afterward  of  the  council  of  Governor  Cranfield,  consent- 
ing to  his  unlawful  and  oppressive  measures,  and,  according  to  one  of  the 
historians,  this  release  of  the  Quakers  was  the  only  worthy  public  action 
recorded  to  his  credit ! 

8  McClintock,  History  of  New  Hampshire,  p.  71. 


294 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Freemen. 


do  hereby  require  and  command  that  liberty  of  conscience 
shall  be  allowed  unto  all  protestants;  and  that  such 
especially,  as  shall  be  conformable  to  the  rites  of  the 
Church  of  England,  shall  be  particularly  countenanced  and 
encouraged." l 

The  first  provincial  assembly,  in  1680,  settled  the  right  of 
the  franchise  by  a  law  that  "  all  Englishmen,  being  Protes- 
tants, settled  Inhabitants  and  freeholders,  of  the  age  of  twenty 
four  years,  not  viceous  in  life,  but  honest,  and  such  as  have 
£20  Ratable  estate,"  should  be  admitted  freemen  of  the 
commonwealth.  Thus  was  reenacted  the  severance  of  civil 
and  religious  privileges.  The  only  religious  qualification 
for  a  freeman  was  Protestantism  —  an  exceedingly  illiberal 
restriction  in  our  day,  but  in  1680  meaning  considerable 
breadth.  It  is  well  to  note  also  that  the  restrictive  word 
"  Protestant "  wrought  no  individual  wrong,  and  acted  simply 
Romanists,  as  a  deterrent  of  any  Romanist  immigration.  For  a  hun- 
dred years  no  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome  furnished 
occasion  to  question  the  disposition  of  New  Hampshire. 
But  it  is  no  injustice  to  suppose  that  in  1680  men  of  that 
faith  might  have  been  desired  to  leave  the  province.  Its 
citizens  shared  with  their  brethren  elsewhere  a  horror  of 
Romanism,  and  the  proclamation  for  a  fast-day  in  1681 
called  upon  the  people  to  implore  "the  divine  favor,"  as 
for  divers  blessings,  so  "  against  the  Popish  party  through- 
out the  world."  2 

The  mind  of  the  new  government  on  the  question  of 
Church  support  found  early  illustration.  It  appears  that 
some  of  the  people  were  disposed  to  resent  the  interference 
of  the  magistrate  with  religious  affairs,  and  in  1681  the  con- 
stable at  Dover  reported  to  the  council  that  many  had  refused 
to  pay  rates  for  the  minister,  on  the  ground  that  the  king's 
commission  guaranteed  liberty  of  conscience,  and  desired 
directions  as  to  his  duty  in  the  case.  The  answer  to  this 

1  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  I,  372-396. 

2  Provincial  Papers,  I,  429. 


Church 
support. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  295 

inquiry  was  given  by  a  law  of  the  next  year,  to  the  effect 
that  the  town  officers  should  assess  the  minister's  support  on 
all  the  taxpayers  of  the  town,  and  should  collect  all  arrear- 
ages by  legal  process.  Refusal  to  pay  was  made  punishable 
by  imprisonment,  until  the  rates  were  paid  or  good  security 
were  given.1 

By  a  law  of  1680,  "  contempt  of  God's  word  or  of  the 
ministers  "  was  made  punishable  by  fine  or  imprisonment ; 
and  in  1681  Robert  Briney,  a  servant  or  apprentice,  for  ab- 
sence from  Church  services,  was  sentenced  to  nine  stripes, 
with  suspension  of  sentence  on  future  good  behavior.2 

In  1682  Governor  Cranfield  arrived  with  royal  instruc-  Governor 
tions,  which  repeated  the  language  of  the  charter  in  regard  Cranfield- 
to  religious  matters,  the  scope  of  which  he  endeavored  to 
extend  far  beyond  its  legitimate  construction.  Cranfield  is 
described  as  a  most  unworthy  character — "arbitrary,  needy, 
and  rapacious.  He  made  no  secret  of  his  object  ...  of 
bettering  his  condition."  A  letter  of  William  Vaughan  — 
than  whom  there  was  no  better  man  in  the  colony,  and  who 
himself  fell  under  the  displeasure  of  Cranfield  for  resisting 
his  oppressive  schemes  —  says  of  him,  "  He  came  for  money, 
and  money  he  will  get."  3 

Our  only  concern  with  the  governor  is  his  absurd  and  op- 
pressive attempt  to  force  the  Church  of  England  on  the  col- 
ony as  an  establishment.  This  was  purely  arbitrary,  and 
without  any  authorization  from  the  English  government, 
which  had  never  gone  beyond  the  command,  that,  while 
allowing  "  liberty  of  conscience  to  all  Protestants,"  such  as 
were  of  the  Church  of  England  should  be  "particularly 
countenanced  and  encouraged."  In  his  orders  the  governor 
appealed  to  "  his  Majesty's  letters  sent  the  Massachusetts," 
as  though  these  contained  an  ordinance  for  establishment. 
He  must  have  presumed  on  the  supposed  ignorance  of  the 

1  Provincial  Papers,  I,  400,  430,  447. 

2  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society  Publication,  VIII,  15,  66. 
8  Barstow,  New  Hampshire,  p.  94  ;  Provincial  Papers,  I,  526. 


296  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

New  Hampshire  clergy,  for  these  letters  to  the  Bay  contained 
no  prescriptions  beyond  those  already  noted.1 

With  the  exceptions  of  Andros,  Fletcher,  and  Cornbury 
in  New  York,  no  other  royal  governor  ventured  such  lengths 
Order  for  in  the  assertion  of  ecclesiastical  power.  By  an  official  order 
Church  Cranfield  undertook  to  change  the  character  of  the  colonial 
Churches  and  assert  the  supremacy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. This  order  was  issued  in  December  of  1683,  and  re- 
quired all  ministers  of  the  province,  after  the  first  of  January 
following,  to  admit  to  the  Lord's  Supper  all  persons  of  suit- 
able age  and  not  vicious,  to  admit  the  children  of  such 
persons  to  baptism,  and,  if  any  one  should  desire  the  sacra- 
ments according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England,  to 
use  those  rites  for  the  administration.  If  any  minister  should 
refuse  to  obey  this  order,  he  was  to  be  deprived  of  his  salary, 
and  his  people  were  to  be  freed  from  the  payment  of  tithes. 

The  ministers  paid  no  attention  to  this  order,  whereupon 
the  irate  governor  summoned  "all  the  ministers  in  New 
Hampshire  to  attend,  the  Monday  following,  to  give  their  rea- 
sons why  they  did  not  administer  the  sacrament  according  to 
his  Majesty's  letters  to  the  Massachusetts  and  the  statutes 
(English)  in  that  case."  The  result  of  this  proposed  hearing, 
if  it  ever  took  place,  is  not  recorded,  but  the  governor  deter- 
mined to  bring  matters  to  a  head  in  the  most  summary  fash- 
Moody,  ion  and  selected  Moody  of  Portsmouth,  the  most  prominent 
of  the  clergy,  as  the  object  of  his  special  wrath. 

To  Moody  he  issued  a  special  command,  that  on  the  next 
Lord's  day  he  read  in  his  meeting-house  the  order  for  con- 
formity. To  this  command  Moody  paid  no  more  attention 
than  to  the  original  order,  and  conducted  his  service  as 
before.  Then,  under  date  of  January  15, 168f,  it  is  recorded 
that  "  James  Sherlock  gives  Moody  notice  in  writing,  that 
Cranfield,  Barefoot,  Chamberlain,  and  Hincks  would  receive 

1  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  VIII,  163-237 ;  McClintock,  New 
Hampshire,  p.  104 ;  Barstow,  New  Hampshire,  pp.  99,  100 ;  Provincial 
Papers,  I,  482-520. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  297 

the  sacrament  from  his  hands,  according  to  the  liturgy  of 
the  Church  of  England,  the  next  Sunday." 

This  precise  demand  was  met  by  Moody  with  a  distinct 
refusal  to  obey,  whereupon  an  immediate  order  was  issued 
for  his  arrest,  "for  administering  the  sacrament  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  England,  and  refusing  to  administer  according 
to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England."  The  case  was  tried 
before  Barefoot,  as  justice,  and  Moody  pleaded  in  his  own 
defence,  showing  that  the  laws  of  England  forbade  the  use 
of  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England  to  those  not  ordained 
in  that  Church,  and  that  he  could  not  use  the  English  liturgy 
without  violating  the  law,  and  "  besides,  these  statutes  were 
not  made  for  these  places,  the  known  end  of  their  removal 
hither  being  that  they  might  enjoy  liberty  in  these  foreign 
plantations,  and  our  commission  granting  liberty  of  con- 


science." 


The  plea  was  just,  but  the  court,  controlled  by  the  gov- 
ernor, set  it  aside  and  committed  Moody  to  prison,  where  he 
was  detained  for  three  months.  One  account  states  that  he 
was  not  released  until  he  promised  to  leave  the  province. 
If  this  is  correct,  then  it  was  during  the  term  of  imprison- 
ment that  occasion  was  given  for  the  following  curious 
record :  "  Mr.  Joshua  Moody,  being  to  take  a  journey  out  of 
the  Province,  was  forced  to  give  a  recognizance  of  £200  to 
return  in  three  weeks,  if  alive  and  well."1  Not  long  after 
this  experience  Moody  left  Portsmouth  and  settled  in  Boston, 
where  he  made  himself  conspicuous  by  opposing  the  witch- 
craft persecution,  comforting  the  afflicted,  and  helping  some 
to  escape,  to  the  great  wrath  of  Cotton  Mather.2 

So  ended  the  great  persecution  in  New  Hampshire,  though 
it  would  appear  that  other  ministers  were  subjected  to  an- 
noyances, for  they  joined  in  complaint  against  Cranfield, 
that  "  the  Ministers,  contrary  to  his  Majesty's  commission, 
which  grants  liberty  of  conscience  to  all  Protestants,  have 

1  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  VIII,  237. 

2  Barstow,  p.  100. 


298  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

their  dues  withheld  from  them,  even  those  due  before  Mr. 
Cranfield  came,  and  are  threatened  with  6  mo?  imprison- 
ment for  not  administering  the  sacrament  according  to  the 
liturgy  of  the  Chh.  of  England."  This  and  other  complaints 
against  Cranfield's  course  had  effect  in  England.  The  gov- 
ernor was  recalled,  and  the  New  Hampshire  Churches  suffered 
from  no  more  attempts  to  convert  them  to  Episcopacy. 

In  the  subsequent  years  various  enactments  confirmed  the 
Town  estab-  Church,  under  the  old  Congregational  order,  as  a  town  estab- 
lishment. Hshment.1  The  laws  of  1692,  1702,  1714  ordained  that,  the 
freeholders  in  each  town  should  choose  the  minister  for  the 
town  Church  and  agree  with  him  for  salary,  that  the  select- 
men should  assess  this  salary  upon  the  town,  and  the  con- 
stable should  collect  it :  "  Provided,  that  this  act  do  not  at 
all  interfere  with  their  Majesties'  grace  and  favor  in  allow- 
ing their  Subjects  liberty  of  conscience  :  nor  shall  any  person, 
under  pretence  of  being  of  a  different  persuasion,  be  excused 
from  paying  towards  the  support  of  the  settled  Minister  or 
Ministers  of  the  Towne,  but  only  such  as  are  conscientiously 
so  and  constantly  attend  the  publick  worship  of  God  on 
the  Lord's  day  according  to  their  own  persuasion."  The 
toleration  in  this  act  was  more  complete  than  that  of  the 
Five-Mile  Act  of  Massachusetts  and  the  similar  law  in  Con- 
necticut. By  these  statutes  the  constable  collected  rates  from 
all,  applying  those  from  dissenters  to  the  support  of  their 
own  ministers,  thus  making  all  the  Churches  a  concern  of 
the  state.  In  New  Hampshire  the  law  made  no  provision 
for  the  payment  of  any  rates  by  dissenters,  nor  concerned 
itself  with  the  support  of  dissenting  ministers.  Those  who 
were  excused  from  the  town  rates,  were  at  liberty  to  arrange 
for  and  collect  the  salary  of  their  minister  as  pleased  them- 
selves. But  exemption  was  not  so  easily  obtained  in  New 
Hampshire.  A  dissenter  claiming  it  was  compelled  to  pro- 
duce proof  of  conscientious  dissent,  of  regular  attendance  on 

1  Provincial  Papers,  III,  189 ;  IV,  226,  391,  414  ;  Johns  Hopkins  Studies, 
X,  89. 


THE  PURITAN  ESTABLISHMENTS  299 

public  worship,  and  of  payment  for  its  support,  while  "  at 
every  point  his  evidence  was  contested  by  the  State." 

Beyond  this  general  arrangement  of  system  there  was  not 
much  legislation  on  Church  matters.  Occasionally  —  depart- 
ing from  the  town  system  — the  legislature  organized  a  Church, 
or  divided  a  parish.  In  1724  a  bill  attempted  amendment  as 
to  the  method  of  choosing  ministers,  the  intent  of  which  was 
to  give  the  initiative  to  the  Church  itself.  The  Church  was 
first  to  choose,  and  their  choice  to  be  submitted  to  the  town. 
If  the  majority  of  freeholders  accepted  this  nominee,  he  was 
to  be  minister.  In  case  of  disagreement,  the  matter  must  be 
"  Decided  by  the  next  three  or  five  adjacent  Churches."  The 
bill  was  deferred  to  the  next  session  and  never  became  a  law, 
so  that  its  only  value  here  is  as  an  indication  of  growing  senti- 
ment toward  the  autonomy  of  the  Church. 

In  1725  the  legislature  granted  relief  in  certain  matters 
to  the  people  of  Sandy  Beach,  appending  to  the  grant  the 
condition,  "  that  they  are  obliged  to  Maintain  an  able  Ortho- 
dox Minister  of  the  Gospell  at  their  own  Charges." 

The  colonial  action  in  regard  to  tests  varied.1  Previously  Tests, 
to  1696  the  oath  required  was  simply  one  of  allegiance  and 
fidelity,  but  in  that  year  the  "  horrid  and  detestable  conspir- 
acy "  against  William  and  Mary  moved  the  legislature  to  pass 
a  law,  requiring  "  all  male  persons  to  take  the  oath  appointed 
by  Act  of  Parliament."  This  act  was  the  toleration  act  of 
1689,  which  imposed,  in  addition  to  the  oath  of  allegiance 
and  supremacy,  a  "  Declaration  "  against  the  pope  and  all 
peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church.  This  requirement 
was  simply  the  demand  of  transient  excitement,  and  it  does 
not  appear  that  the  oath  continued  to  be  exacted,  even  from 
office-holders.  The  legislature  of  1727  formulated  an  oath 
for  office-holders,  which  was  very  precise  in  its  loyalty  to  the 
House  of  Hanover  and  its  abjuration  of  the  Stuarts,  but  made 
no  declaration  of  faith  or  against  popery.  Again  in  1752,  in 

1  Provincial  Papers,  III,  201 ;  V,  128 ;  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society, 
V,  93. 


300  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  time  of  the  French  war,  when  there  was  a  new  spasm 
of  fear  of  popery  widespread  in  the  colonies,  the  legislature 
itself  took  "  the  Oaths  and  Declaration  appointed  by  Act  of 
Parliament,"  but  did  not  impose  them  on  the  people  at  large 
or  on  other  office-holders. 

One  other  item  remains,  not  of  legislation,  but  of  action 
illustrating  the  prevalent  thought  that  government  should 
concern  itself  with  religious  matters.1  In  1725  the  Rev. 
Hugh  Adams,  having  composed  a  religious  treatise,  sent  the 
manuscript  to  the  governor,  with  the  request  that  the  legis- 
lature take  order  for  its  publication.  That  body,  to  whom 
the  governor  sent  the  application,  finding  that  the  treatise 
was  "  on  controversial  points  of  Divinity,"  voted,  that  "  the 
Gospell  Ministers  of  this  Province  take  the  manuscript  into 
consideration  and  report,  that  the  Publication  thereof  may 
be  countenanced  or  discouraged,  and  the  said  manuscript  be 
disposed  of  as  may  be  most  for  the  Glory  of  God."  The 
report  of  the  ministers  represented  that  the  work  was  full  of 
errors  of  doctrine  and  was  "unworthy  of  the  least  counte- 
nance " ;  whereupon  the  legislature  thanked  the  ministers, 
and  ordered  that  "  the  manuscript  be  lodged  in  the  Secre- 
tary's office,  and  no  one  shall  have  a  copy  !  "  Thus  the  law- 
makers were  conservative  and  dreaded  the  introduction  of 
heresy.  One  can  regret  the  nature  of  the  treatise  and  report, 
for  the  mere  desire  of  seeing  what  the  action  would  have 
been  on  a  favorable  verdict  from  the  examining  ministers. 
A  religious  treatise  published  by  a  legislature  would  have 
been  something  altogether  unique. 

Our  New  Hampshire  chapter  is  thus  necessarily  short. 
Religious  matters  in  the  province  knew  little  change.  The 
people  were  mostly  of  one  faith,  while  the  spirit  of  intolerance 
was  never  a  popular  sentiment  among  them.  With  their 
Church  established  as  a  town  institution  they  went  into  the 
revolutionary  period;  and  what  changes  were  subsequently 
made  will  be  noted  in  the  chapter  on  Final  Settlements. 

i  Provincial  Papers,  IV,  172,  192,  412. 


VI 

CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS 

THE  colonies  of  New  York,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  and 
Georgia  form  a  group  by  themselves,  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  their  history  is  marked  by  change  in  the  relation  of  the 
colonial  government  to  the  Church.  In  all  of  them  there 
occurred  during  the  colonial  period  a  distinct  modification  of 
the  ecclesiastical  attitude.  New  York  and  New  Jersey, 
begun  under  Dutch  auspices  and  with  ecclesiastical  subjec- 
tion to  the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  were  by  the  Eng- 
lish conquest  brought  into  a  peculiar  ecclesiastical  struggle. 
Not  only  was  their  ancestral  Church  dislodged  from  its  posi- 
tion, but  a  prolonged,  though  unsuccessful,  effort  of  the 
English  government  to  force  upon  them  an  alien  establish- 
ment was  the  cause  of  much  trouble  and  bitterness.  Mary- 
land began  with  almost  complete  freedom,  under  a  Roman 
Catholic  palatine,  but  through  Puritan  uncharitableness  and 
political  intrigue  was  forced  into  intolerance,  and  finally 
subjected  to  an  Anglican  establishment.  Georgia  also  was 
planted  with  the  allowance  of  liberty,  but,  on  the  annulling 
of  its  charter  by  the  crown,  this  liberty  gave  place  to  the 
royal  establishment  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  history 
of  colonial  Georgia  is,  however,  so  short,  and  its  beginnings 
were  so  near  to  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  with  the  crucial 
questions  of  liberty  already  decided,  that  its  religious  story 
is  without  much  importance  in  the  development  of  our  pres- 
ent theme. 

I.   New  York 

The  story  of  New  York,  in  relation  to  the  Church  and  to 
religious  liberty,  has  some  peculiar  features  without  likeness 

301 


302  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

in  other  colonies,  except  New  Jersey.  Throughout  the 
colonial  period  there  either  was,  or  was  supposed  to  be,  an 
established  Church,  but  the  Church  of  early  institution  was 
other  than  the  one  which  the  English  conquest  of  New 
Amsterdam  attempted  to  introduce.  In  regard  to  the  later 
establishment  there  is  also  the  curious  fact  that,  while  the 
English  authorities  always  acted  on  the  supposition  that 
the  Church  established  in  New  York  by  the  act  of  1693  was 
the  Church  of  England,  it  yet  was  not  such  and  legally  had 
no  organic  relation  to  the  Anglican  establishment. 

Another  notable  thing  is,  that  the  bounds  of  this  latter 
establishment  were  restricted  to  four  counties  by  the  terms 
of  the  act,  all  the  rest  of  the  colony  being  free  from  the 
imposition  of  a  State-Church. 

Yet  one  more  general  feature  is  in  the  vacillating  conduct 
of  the  colonial  authorities  in  regard  to  religious  and  ecclesi- 
astical affairs ;  for  the  most  part  easy  and  tolerant  of  dissent, 
and  occasionally  breaking  out  in  stern  language  of  repression 
or  harsh  measures  of  persecution.  There  was  no  set  pur- 
pose, as  in  Massachusetts  and  Virginia,  to  force  one  form  of 
worship  on  the  people,  a  purpose  steadily  adhered  to  until 
relaxation  was  compelled  by  the  strong  growth  of  dissent. 
"Whether  the  utmost  possible  laxity,  or  a  bigoted  narrowness, 
should  prevail  in  the  governmental  policy  depended  entirely 
on  the  changing  caprice,  or  principle,  of  governors. 

To  begin  with,  when  the  Dutch  West  India  company  set 
out,  under  the  broad  and  almost  imperial  powers  of  their 
charter  from  the  states  general  of  Holland,  to  found  their 
colony  on  the  Hudson,  unlike  other  colonial  founders,  they 
made  no  professions  of  religious  motives.  Undoubtedly, 
the  religious  troubles  in  Europe  had  large  influence  in  peo- 
Settiement.  pling  the  colony.  Germany  sent  Lutherans  out  of  the  tur- 
moils of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  ;  France  sent  many  of  her 
Huguenot  refugees ;  out  of  Scotland  and  intolerant  Massa- 
chusetts came  the  disciples  of  Presbytery ;  while  the  Dutch 
founders  brought  with  them  the  ordinances  of  discipline  of 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  303 

the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland.  The  latter  were  hastened 
also  in  their  schemes  of  colonization  by  the  sharp,  political 
antagonisms  in  the  Netherlands  growing  out  of  the  Arminian 
debate.  Thus  it  may  be  truly  said  that,  "  the  settlement  of 
Manhattan  grew  directly  out  of  the  great  continental  strug- 
gles of  Protestantism."  1 

Yet  the  confessed  motive  of  the  undertaking  was  neither 
for  liberty  of  conscience  nor  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel 
among  the  heathen.  So  far  as  the  states  general  were  con- 
cerned, the  motive  was  political,  to  give  to  Holland  place 
and  power  among  the  colonizing  nations  of  Europe  ;  while 
the  West  India  company  occupied  its  mind  with  dreams  of 
commercial  gain. 

At  the  same  time,  the  thought  of,  and  provision  for,  reli- 
gion were  not  absent  from  the  company's  plans.     That  some  Care  for 
provision  should  be  made  by  government  for  religious  ser-  rellglon* 
vices  in  the  settlement  was  a  necessity  of  the  time.     It  was 
taken   for  granted,  both  that  such   arrangement  should  be 
made,  and  that  the  religious  affairs  should  be  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  company. 

The  first  Dutch  minister,  Jonas  Michaelius,  was  sent  out 
by  the  company  in  1628,  for  whose  support  the  company 
made  itself  responsible.  He  "  built  a  Church  "  and  formed 
an  organization,  with  Peter  Minuit,  the  first  Dutch  governor, 
as  one  of  its  two  elders.  So  far  as  is  reported,  the  first 
formal  expression  of  the  company's  policy  in  regard  to  reli- 
gious matters  was  made  in  16 38,2  in  the  "  Articles  for  Coloni- 
zation." These  articles  were  drawn  with  the  aim  of  attracting 
emigrants,  and  were  submitted  for  approval  to  the  states 
general.  The  two  sections  which  touch  upon  religion  are 
as  follows :  — 

"  2.   Religion  shall  be  taught  and  preached  there,  according 
to  the  Confessions  and  formularies  of  Union  here  pub- 

1  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  277. 
3  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  110. 


304 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Liberality  lidy  accepted  .  .  .  without,  however,  it  being  in- 

in(S,eSt  ferred  that  any  person  shall  be  hereby  in  any  wise 

company.  constrained  or  aggrieved  in  his  conscience. 

"  8.  Each  house  holder  and  inhabitant  shall  bear  such  tax 
and  public  charge  as  shall  hereafter  be  considered 
proper  for  the  maintenance  of  clergymen,  comfort- 
ers of  the  sick,  &c." 

The  intent  of  a  Church  establishment,  with  a  rate  assessed  by 
the  civil  law  on  every  inhabitant,  is  thus  clearly  expressed  while 
there  is  marked  liberality  in  the  allowance  of  dissent. 

Because  of  this  latter  feature,  it  would  appear,  the  articles 
failed  of  approval  by  the  states  general ;  and,  two  years  after, 
the  direction  about  the  Church  was  modified  to  the  terms  of 
positive  and  exclusive  establishment  of  the  national  Church 
of  Holland.  The  article  reads :  "  No  other  Religion  shall 
Reformed  be  publicly  admitted  in  New  Netherland  except  the  Reformed, 
as  ^  *s  a^  Presen^  preached  and  practiced  by  public  authority 
in  the  United  Netherlands:  and  for  this  purpose  the  Com- 
pany shall  provide  and  maintain  good  and  suitable  preachers, 
school-masters,  and  comforters  of  the  sick."1  Under  this 
restricted  rule  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  colony  were 
ostensibly  administered  to  the  end  of  the  Dutch  possession, 
but  showed  no  indications  of  harshness  until  the  fiery  Stuy  ve- 
sant  came  to  the  governorship.  The  company  assumed  the 
expense  of  Church-building  and  maintenance  of  the  ministry,2 
the  choice  and  commissioning  of  whom  it  claimed  as  its  pre- 
rogative —  a  genuine  right  of  presentation. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  company's  out- 
lay for  these  purposes  was  large.  In  the  whole  period  of  the 
Dutch  rule  not  more  than  ten  ministers  were  sent  over,  and 
there  appeared  early  tokens  of  desire  to  shift  the  burden 
of  maintenance  upon  the  colonists.  This  desire,  indeed,  was 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  119. 
*  Ibid.,  I,  155;  XIV,  69,  84. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  305 

expressed  in  the  first  articles,  and  was  put  into  the  agreement 
of  1629 !  with  the  "  Patroons." 

This  agreement,  which  instituted  a  favored  class  of  men  Patroons. 
unlike  any  found  in  other  colonies,  conferred  upon  any,  who 
"within  four  years  would  plant  a  colony  of  fifty  souls,"  a 
right  to  purchase  immense  tracts  of  land  and  to  exercise 
thereon  the  power  of  lords  of  the  manor.2  The  agreement 
recited  that,  "  the  Patroons  and  colonists  shall  in  particular 
and  in  the  speediest  manner  endeavor  to  find  out  ways  and 
means  whereby  they  may  support  a  minister  and  school-mas- 
ter, that  the  service  of  God  and  zeal  for  religion  may  not  grow 
cool  and  be  neglected  among  them ;  and  that  they  do,  for  the 
first,  procure  a  comforter  for  the  sick  there." 

With  this  desire  to  get  rid  of  the  expense  of  the  establish- 
ment, the  company  was  yet  unwilling  to  part  with  its  right  of 
presentation ;  and  on  that  subject  it  came  promptly  into  col- 
lision with  its  first  patroon  upon  the  Hudson,  Kiliaen  van 
Rensselaer.  This  powerful  and  rich  member  of  the  company 
had  by  purchase  from  the  Indians  and  by  patents  obtained  an 
enormous  estate,  extending  twenty-four  miles  on  both  sides 
of  the  Hudson,  above  and  below  Fort  Orange  (Albany),  and 
forty-eight  miles  east  and  west.  To  such  a  manorial  lord  as 
this  it  seemed  but  fitting  that  the  choice  of  a  minister  in  his 
domain  should  vest  in  himself.3  He  therefore  agreed  with 
and  appointed  John  Megapolensis  as  the  minister  at  Fort 
Orange.  To  this  appointment  the  company  objected  strenu- 
ously, claiming  that  the  directors  alone  could  make  or  ap- 
prove such  appointments.  The  strife  between  the  two  parties 
was  continued  for  several  months,  and  was  finally  composed 
by  a  compromise,  which  left  a  doubtful  victory  to  the  com- 
pany, that  Van  Rensselaer  should  consent  to  "  the  directors 
approving  the  appointment,  under  protest,  saving  his  rights 
as  Patroon." 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  405 ;  O'Callaghan,  New  Netherland, 
I,  119. 

2  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  281.  8  O'Callaghan,  I,  328. 

x 


306 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Megapo- 
lensis. 


Bogardus. 


Sundry  other  instances  of  action  by  the  company  and  by  the 
civil  authorities  at  New  Amsterdam  may  further  illustrate  their 
intentional  administration  of  a  Church  establishment.  In  1638 
Domine  Bogardus,  evidently  regarding  himself  as  a  servant  of 
the  company,  requested  permission  to  visit  Holland,  which  re- 
quest the  governor  and  council  refused,  explaining,  "  We 
have  deemed  it  necessary  to  retain  the  Minister  here,  so  that 
the  Church  of  God  may  increase  more  and  more,  day  by  day." l 

A  similar  application  was  made  to  the  council  by  Mega- 
polensis  in  1649,  and  refused,  on  the  ground  that,  "  the  ex- 
treme need  of  the  Church  imperatively  demands  that  one 
minister  at  least  remain  in  this  province,  .  .  .  were  it  only 
for  administering  Baptism  to  the  children." 2  The  Domine 
had  already  been  dismissed  from  Rensselaerwyck  and  had 
come  to  New  Amsterdam,  on  his  way  to  Holland.  The  coun- 
cil not  only  refused  permission  to  sail,  but  formally  called  him 
to  the  Church  of  New  Amsterdam,  recently  left  vacant  by  the 
departure  of  Domine  Bogardus.  The  councii  reported  their 
determination  to  retain  Megapolensis,  "  blanda  vi  et  quasi  no- 
lens volens.  Such  we  resolve  to  be  most  necessary  for  the 
honor  of  God,  the  service  of  his  Church,  and  the  salvation  of 
the  people."  This  action  of  the  governor  (Stuyvesant)  and 
council  was  approved  by  the  directors  in  Holland,  who  wrote 
to  Stuyvesant,3  that  they  have  paid  to  the  Domine's  wife 
600  florins  as  six  months'  salary;  that  they  are  taking  steps 
to  have  published  at  their  expense  a  religious  treatise  by  Meg- 
apolensis ;  and  that  they  have  engaged  the  Rev.  Samuel  Dri- 
sius,  "  a  very  pious  man  and  possessed  of  great  gifts,  able  to 
preach  in  English,  Dutch,  and  French,"  to  go  out  as  an  as- 
sistant. The  directors  fixed  the  salary  for  Drisius  at  100 
florins  per  month  and  250  florins  annually  for  subsistence. 

Another  record  —  or  set  of  records  —  exhibits  the  governor 
and  council  attempting  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  discipline.4 
The  subject  of  it  was  the  same  Domine  Bogardus,  whose 


1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  10. 
s  Ibid.,  XIV,  119,  123,  134,  173. 


2  Ibid.,  XIV,  116. 

4  Ibid.,  XIV,  59,  69,  72,  84. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  307 

spiritual  services  were  in  1638  too  valuable  to  lose.  Seven 
years  after  that  date,  either  the  Domine  had  changed  his  con- 
duct or  the  council  had  altered  their  opinion  of  him,  for  in 
1645  Governor  Kieft  sent  to  him  from  the  council  a  formal 
admonition  in  writing,  "  which  he  would  not  receive  or  open, 
and  the  paper  was  returned  by  the  court  messenger."  There- 
upon Bogardus  was  summoned  to  answer  before  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  on  various  charges  of  improper  and  scandal- 
ous conduct  "unbecoming  a  Minister."  The  summons  also 
upbraids  him  for  "  your  disposition  towards  the  Company,  by 
whom  you  are  paid."  To  this  summons  Bogardus  replied  in 
writing,  refusing  to  appear,  and  "  abusing  them  from  the  chair 
of  truth."  The  council  then  offered  to  leave  the  matter  to 
the  decision  of  Domines  Megapolensis  and  Doughty ;  but  this 
also  Bogardus  refused,  demanding  that  the  case  be  deferred 
until  the  arrival  of  the  new  governor  (Stuyvesant),  then  daily 
expected. 

When  Stuyvesant  arrived  he  decided  to  send  the  stubborn  Stuyvesant 
minister  home  to  Holland,  together  with  Kieft,  whose  adminis- 
tration of  civil  affairs  had  been  one  continued  disgrace.  The 
two  sailed  in  the  ill-fated  Princess,  which  was  lost  at  sea. 
The  directors,  in  notifying  Stuyvesant  of  the  loss,  wrote  of 
Bogardus  :  —  " 4  When  the  shepherd  errs,  the  sheep  go  astray,' 
fitly  applies  to  his  case.  He  with  others,  has  been  relieved  from 
rendering  his  account." 

In  the  same  period  with  these  records  are  others  showing 
the  liberal  disposition  of  the  authorities  at  New  Amsterdam.  Toleration. 
In  1642  the  Rev.  F.  Doughty,  whose  expulsion  from  the 
Church  at  Taunton  has  been  narrated  in  the  chapter  on 
Plymouth,  came  with  Richard  Smith  and  others  to  Long 
Island,  and  the  company  received  from  the  council  permis- 
sion to  settle  with  their  minister.  It  was  ordained  that  "  They 
shall  enjoy  the  free  exercise  of  religion."  1 

Patents  were  issued  in  1642,  1644,  and  1645  to  different 
parties  of  "  Englishmen,"  at  New  Town,  Flushing,  and  the 
i  O'Callaghan,  I,  257  ;  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  p.  27. 


308  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  Great  Plaines  on  Long  Island,"  which  ordained  "  the  use 
and  exercise  of  the  reformed  Religion,  which  they  profess, 
with  the  Ecclesiastical  Discipline  thereunto  belonging."1 
The  patent  to  the  Flushing  settlers  specified  that  they  were 
"  to  have  and  Enjoy  the  Liberty  of  Conscience  according  to 
the  Custom  and  Manner  of  Holland,  without  molestation  or 
disturbance  from  any  Magistrate  or  Magistrates,  or  any  other 
Ecclesiastical  Minister  that  may  pretend  Jurisdiccon  over 
them."  In  these  regulations  a  full  toleration  of  orderly  dis- 
sent was  undoubtedly  intended.  So  much  the  "  Custom  and 
Manner  of  Holland"  involved,  while  the  reference  to  the 
"  Reformed  Religion  which  they  prof esse  "  clearly  carries  the 
broad  construction  of  the  word  "Reformed." 

Besides  these  admissions,  other  parties  were  welcomed  to 
the  Dutch  Colony.  Throgmorton  and  a  number  of  friends, 
who  had  left  Massachusetts  on  account  of  the  prosecution  of 
Roger  Williams,  settled  at  West  Chester  with  the  permission 
of  the  council.  Sir  Henry  and  Lady  Deborah  Moody,  "  who 
had  become  imbued  with  the  erroneous  doctrine  that  infant 
baptism  was  a  sinful  ordinance,"  were,  1645,  with  Ensign 
George  Baxter  and  Sergeant  James  Hubbard  permitted  by 
a  formal  vote  of  the  council  to  settle  at  Gravesend,  Long 
Ann  Hutch-  Island.2  The  celebrated  Ann  Hutchinson  also  found  a  free 
inson.  asylum  among  the  Dutch,  taking  up  her  abode  with  her 

younger  children  in  the  upper  part  of  Manhattan  Island. 
Not  long  afterward  they  all  perished  in  the  massacre  by  the 
Indians.  That  the  directors  approved  of  such  admissions  is 
stated  in  their  letter  to  Stuy  vesant,  that  they  had  no  objection 
to  Englishmen  settling  in  New  Netherland  "  in  reasonable 
numbers."  3 

In  1646  Peter  Stuyvesant  began  his  tempestuous  reign  at 

1  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  pp.  43,  48  ;  Colonial  History  of  New  York, 
XIV,  38. 

2  O'Callaghan,  I,  258  ;  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I, 
486 ;  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  p.  53. 

8  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  76. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  309 

New  Amsterdam.  Honest  and  faithful,  never  did  a  man 
strive  more  earnestly  than  he  to  serve  his  masters  and  bring 
order  out  of  chaos.  With  a  devoted  patriotism,  never  did 
a  man  drink  a  bitterer  cup  than  he  when  he  surrendered  to 
the  British.  At  the  same  time,  the  one-legged  governor 
qualified  these  virtues  by  narrowness  of  mind,  obstinacy,  and 
a  fiery  temper.  The  beginning  of  his  administration  was 
with  gentleness  and  with  many  indications  of  his  care  for  the 
Church,  several  incidents  of  which  are  noted  in  illustration  of 
the  acknowledged  dependence  of  religious  affairs  on  govern- 
mental action. 

In  1646  the  sheriff  and  others  in  the  new  settlement  at 
Flushing  applied  to  the  governor  and  council  to  "  favor  them 
with  a  pious,  learned,  and  reformed  minister,  and  then  to 
order  that  each  inhabitant  shall  contribute  to  such  godly 
work  according  to  his  ability." 1  To  this  the  council  promised 
such  action  "as  shall  be  found  to  promote  peace,  union,  and 
tranquillity  both  in  ecclesiastical  and  civil  affairs."  The  mat- 
ter having  been  reported  to  the  company,  a  reply  assured 
that,  "  We  shall  look  out  for  a  man  fit  to  attend  the  Church 
there."  This  search  does  not  seem  to  have  been  immediately 
successful,  or  it  may  be  that  a  vacancy  had  occurred,  for  in 
1654  the  directors  of  the  company  alluded  to  the  matter 
again,  saying :  "  We  have  been  pleased  to  see  the  zeal  of 
several  of  our  inhabitants  of  a  new  village  on  Long  Island 
for  the  Reformed  religion,  and,  that  it  may  not  cool,  we  have 
resolved  to  contribute  600  fl.  yearly,  and  are  looking  about 
here  for  a  fit  and  pious  teacher  or  minister."  2 

In  the  letter  of  Stuyvesant,  telling  of  the  above  request, 
he  also  suggested  to  the  directors  that  Domine  Megapolensis 
should  be  transferred  from  Fort  Orange  to  the  Church  in 
New  Amsterdam,  to  which  they  answered  with  a  doubt 
whether  the  patroons  would  consent,  and  whether  the  Domine 
could  not  be  as  useful  at  Rensselaerwyck  as  elsewhere. 
Then,  in  striking  contrast  with  a  frequent  arbitrariness  in 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  82,  84.  2  Ibid.,  XIV,  252. 


310  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

such  matters,  they  remarked:  "It  must  also  be  considered 
that  this  plan  cannot  be  well  carried  out  without  the  consent 
of  the  colonists." 

Interest  in  the  religious  affairs  of  the  colony  finds  expres- 
sion in  the  states  general  in  Holland,  which  in  1650  resolved 
that,  "New  Netherland  being  now  provided  with  only  one 
clergyman,  orders  shall  be  given  forthwith  for  the  calling  and 
support  of  at  least  three  more." 1 

Ministerial  The  matter  of  support  of  ministers  was  the  subject  of  much 
support.  action  both  in  Holland  and  New  Amsterdam.  In  1654  the 
company  wrote  to  Stuyvesant  that,  Domine  Drisius  complained 
"  that  he  did  not  get  his  salary,"  and  rebuked  the  governor 
for  his  carelessness  in  not  securing  the  payment  of  the  minis- 
ter.2 Thereupon  the  council  at  New  Amsterdam  adopted  a 
rule,  ordering  the  Schepens  (associate  justices)  in  each  town 
to  provide  for  the  minister's  salary.  To  this  the  burgomas- 
ters and  schepens  replied  with  an  agreement  to  "pay  one 
preacher,  one  precentor,  who  is  to  be  schoolmaster,  and  one 
beadle."  This  official  array  they  styled  "  the  ecclesiastical 
establishment." 

There  seems  to  have  been  some  failure  on  the  part  of  the 
town  officers  to  fulfil  this  agreement,  as,  later  in  the  same 
year,  the  governor  and  council  sent  the  following  remarkable 
notice  to  them.  It  asserts  that  the  matter  of  "  Tavern  Ex- 
cise "  had  been  put  into  the  hands  of  the  burgomasters  and 
schepens,  "  on  the  promise  and  under  the  condition  that  they 
would  induce,  or  compel,  the  proprietors  to  provide  means  for 
the  support  of  the  preachers."  They  having  failed,  the  coun- 
cil will  now  "  let  the  said  Excise  to  the  highest  bidder  " ; 
and  the  notice  concludes :  "  By  these  means  the  Burgomas- 
ters and  Schepens  will  be  excused  and  delivered  from  car- 
rying out  their  agreement  to  support  one  clergyman,  one 
schoolmaster,  and  one  beadle ;  the  intentions  and  orders  of 
the  Lords  Directors  will  be  executed ;  the  jus  patronatus  will 

1  O'Callaghan,  New  Netherland.  II,  134. 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  262,  268,  289,  293. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  311 

be  preserved,  and  both  the  clergymen  paid  and  placed  above 
want."  No  record  was  made  of  the  success  of  this  ingenious 
scheme  to  support  the  gospel  from  the  proceeds  of  the  liquor 
business,  and  to  maintain  the  rights  of  an  established 
Church. 

Sundry  records  illustrate  the  attention  of  the  council  to  the 
details  of  the  Church,  to  an  extent  that  deprived  ministers  interfer- 
and  Churches  of  much  self-determining  power.  A  few  of  ence- 
such,  taken  almost  at  random,  are  of  interest.1  Thus,  in 
1654,  the  council  ordered  that  "  Dom.  Polhemus  should  con- 
tinue at  Midwout,  and  the  people  have  liberty  to  collect 
money  for  building  a  Church."  The  people  must  have  met 
with  success  in  their  collection,  but  they  were  not  to  be 
allowed  to  spend  the  funds  at  their  own  discretion,  for  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  council  a  committee  from  its  own 
members  was  appointed  to  superintend  the  building  of  the 
Church. 

To  a  petition  from  Brooklyn  asking  that  the  minister  at 
Midwout  be  allowed  to  preach  alternately  in  Brooklyn,  the 
gracious  answer  was  returned :  "  The  Director  General  and 
Council  of  New  Netherland  have  no  objection  against  Do 
Johannes  Polhemius  officiating  alternately  at  both  places, 
wind  and  weather  permitting."2 

This  Domine  Polhemus  had  troubles  which  he  brought  to 
the  council.3  In  1656  he  complained  that  his  "house  was  not 
fit  to  live  in,"  and  also  asked  the  council  to  pay  him  100  florins 
on  salary  account.  This  the  council  did,  but  took  no  ac- 
tion about  his  house.  Two  years  afterward,  the  council  paid 
all  arrears  of  his  salary,  and  ordered  the  arrest  of  three  men 
of  Brooklyn  for  refusing  to  pay  6  guilders  each  toward 
the  minister's  support.  One  of  the  three  was  a  Frenchman 
and  the  others  were  Englishmen.  The  first  pleaded  that  he 
was  a  Catholic,  and  the  others  that  they  did  not  under- 
stand Dutch ;  but  each  was  compelled  to  pay  a  fine  of  12 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  295,  310. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  338.       »  Ibid.,  pp.  370,  377,  411,  414. 


312  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

guilders.1  The  Domine's  wrongs  found  their  way  into  the 
chambers  of  the  company  at  Amsterdam,  on  complaint  of 
three  Holland  ministers,  and  payment  was  ordered  by  the 
directors.2  About  the  same  time  the  complaint  came  to  the 
council  that  "some  Inhabitants  of  Hempstead  refused  to 
pay  "  toward  the  minister's  support,  and  the  magistrates  of 
the  town  were  authorized  to  "  constrain  and  punish  as  they 
in  equity  shall  think  meet."  3 

Toward  the  middle  of  Stuyvesant's  term  there  appear 
tokens  of  a  more  strenuous  rule,  and  determination  to  uphold 
the  established  Church  against  all  comers.  In  1651  the 
Council  adopted  an  ordinance,  declaring  that  the  judges  must 
be  "promoters  and  professors  of  the  Reformed  Religion,  as  it 
is  at  present  taught  in  the  Churches  of  New  Netherland,  in 
conformity  to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  order  of  the  Synod 
of  Dordrecht."  4 

The  governor  was  jealous  for  his  own  authority  also,  and, 
while  watchful  that  the  Churches  were  faithful  in  religious 
duty,  would  permit  no  outbreaking  of  the  clergy  into  civil 
affairs.  Domine  Backerus  had  offended  him  by  some  such 
manifestations,  whereon  the  peppery  Stuyvesant  went  in 
person  to  the  Domine's  house  and  left  a  written  notice,  forbid- 
ding him  "  to  read,  or  have  read,  in  Church  any  writing, 
petition,  or  proposal,  having  relation  to  the  municipal  or 
general  government,  whether  generally  or  in  particular,  be- 
fore such  writing  shall  be  signed  by  the  Director  himself,  or 
the  Secretary,  by  order  of  Director  and  Council.  But  this  is 
not  to  apply  to  ecclesiastical  affairs."5  The  precise  nature  of 
the  minister's  offence  is  not  recorded,  but  the  governor's 
rebuff  seems  to  have  crushed  him,  for  presently  he  applied 
for  permission  to  return  to  Holland,  which  was  at  once 

1  O'Callaghan,  II,  353. 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  II,  72. 
8  Ibid.,  XIV,  513. 

4  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  p.  395. 

6  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  114,  115. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  313 

granted  by  the   council.     Such  was   the   issue   of  the  first 
attempt  in  New  York  to  take  politics  into  the  pulpit. 

Stuyvesant  was  also  of  a  mind  to  assert  his  ecclesiastical 
authority  at  a  distance  from  the  capital,  as  in  1657  he  wrote 
to  the  magistrates  of  Hempstead,  nominating  a  Mr.  Denton 
to  be  minister  there,  and  forbidding  "the  return  of  Rev.  Mr. 
Fordim  because  he  did  leave  the  place,  and  also  the  exercise 
of  the  ministry  without  our  wish  or  knowledge,  and  for  no  or 
little  reasons."  1  The  governor  meant  to  govern  in  all  things, 
and  had  small  patience  with  opposition,  whether  from  indi- 
viduals or  Churches,  in  things  secular  or  religious.2 

The  first  dissenters  subjected  to  his  annoyance  were  the 
Lutherans.  Many  of  these  religionists  had  been  attracted  to  Lutherans. 
New  Amsterdam,  and  in  1653  petitioned  the  governor  and 
council  for  liberty  of  worship  and  permission  to  send  for  a 
Lutheran  minister.3  The  petition  was  opposed  by  the  Dutch 
clergy,  and  referred  to  the  company  in  Holland,  who,  in  1654, 
replied :  "  We  have  decided  absolutely  to  deny  the  request 
made  by  some  of  our  inhabitants,  adherents  of  the  Augsburg 
confession,  for  a  preacher  and  free  exercise  of  their  religion, 
pursuant  to  the  custom  hitherto  observed  by  us  and  the  East 
India  Company,  on  account  of  the  consequences  arising  there- 
from ;  and  we  recommend  to  you  also  not  to  receive  any 
similar  petitions,  but  rather  to  turn  them  off  in  the  most 

1  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  118. 

2  This  testy  disposition  made  for  him  enemies  very  early  in  his  service  at 
New  Amsterdam,  a  token  of  which  is  preserved  in  a  letter,  written  in  1651, 
by  one  Van  Dincklage  to  a  Van  Donck  :  "To  describe  the  state  of  this  gov- 
ernment to  one  well  acquainted  and  conversant  with  it  is  a  work  of  superero- 
gation ;  'tis  to  wash  a  blackamoor.      Our  great  Muscovy  Duke  goes  on  as 
usual,  with  something  of  the  wolf ;  the  older  he  gets,  the  more  inclined  he 
is  to  bite.    He  proceeds  no  longer  by  words  or  writings,  but  by  arrests  and 
stripes."  (Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  453.)     This  description  had 
reference  to  Stuyvesant's  course  in  some  political  disturbances,  but  it  may 
illustrate  the  spirit  with  which  he  undertook  to  suppress  dissent  in  religious 
affairs. 

8  O'Callaghan,  New  Netherland,  II,  320 ;  Laws  of  New  Netherland  ; 
Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  252. 


314  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

civil  and  least  offensive  way,  and  to  employ  all  possible,  but 
moderate,  means  to  induce  them  to  listen  and  finally  join  the 
Reformed  Church." 

Notwithstanding  this  rebuff,  the  Lutherans  persisted  in 
their  desire,  and  held  religious  services  in  their  houses  with- 
out a  minister,  by  which  they  excited  the  governor's  wrath, 
made  specially  severe  by  the  Lutheran  assertion  that  "  Heaven 
Persecution,  was  above  law."  Some  of  the  offenders  he  threw  into  prison, 
and  posted  up  an  "  edict "  prohibiting  any  more  attempts  at 
their  dissenting  worship. 

In  this  harsh  treatment  Stuyvesant  doubtless  thought  him- 
self justified  by  the  directors'  refusal  to  permit  freedom  of 
worship  ;  but  it  seems  that  in  the  meantime  they  had  found 
reason  to  modify  their  decision,  notice  of  which  they  sent  to 
the  governor  together  with  a  rebuke  for  his  violence.  Under 
date  of  June  14,  1656,  they  wrote :  "  We  should  have  gladly 
seen  that  your  Honor  had  not  posted  up  the  transmitted  edict 
against  the  Lutherans,  and  had  not  punished  them  by  impris- 
onment, .  .  .  inasmuch  as  it  has  always  been  our  intention 
to  treat  them  with  all  peaceableness  and  quietness.  Where- 
for,  your  Honor  shall  not  cause  any  more  such  or  similar 
Edicts  to  be  published  without  our  previous  knowledge,  but 
suffer  the  matter  to  pass  in  silence,  and  permit  them  their 
free  Worship  in  their  houses." 

This  is  as  far  as  the  directors  were  willing  to  go  for  a 
while;  for  they  wrote  to  Stuyvesant  in  1657,1  that  they 
would  not  increase  the  religious  liberty  of  the  Lutherans 
"  beyond  the  terms  of  our  letter  of  June  of  last  year."  Again 
in  1658  they  signified  to  the  governor  their  approval  of  his 
action  in  sending  out  of  the  colony  John  Goetwater,  a  Lu- 
theran minister,  who  had  found  his  way  thither  and  had 
attempted  ministerial  functions.2 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  388. 

2  This  approval  seems  to  have  been  incited  by  a  report  from  Domines 
Megapolensis  and  Drisius  to  the  classis  of  Amsterdam,  which  is  well  worth 
quotation.    (Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  69.)    They  relate  that, 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  315 

In  their  last  letter  the  directors  opened  a  matter,  in  which 
lay  the  root  of  Lutheran  objections  to  the  established  Church. 
The  law  required  the  baptism  of  all  children,  while  restrict-  Baptism, 
ing  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  to  the  Reformed 
minister  and  in  the  Reformed  Church.  Thither  were 
Lutheran  parents  compelled  to  take  their  children  for  an 
administration  which  they  resented.  The  directors  counsel 
"  moderation  and  tolerance  "  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law, 
and  ordered  the  use  of  "  the  old  formulary  of  baptism,''  which 
they  understood  to  be  less  offensive  to  the  Lutherans ;  and 
also  ordered  that  "  the  words  '•present  here  in  Church '  (refer- 
ring to  parents)  be  entirely  omitted." 1 

To  this  subject  the  directors  returned  in  the  next  year 
severely  blaming  Domines  Megapolensis  and  Drisius  for 
"  making  difficulties  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  old  formula 
of  baptism,"  and  insisting  that  the  Lutherans  must  "be 
placated,"  as  otherwise  the  trouble  "might  result  in  the 
permission  to  conduct  a  separate  divine  service  there;  for 
the  Lutherans  would  very  easily  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
authorities  here  (the  states  general)  upon  a  complaint,  and 
we  would  have  no  means  of  preventing  it."  In  1660  the 
directors  informed  Stuyvesant  that  they  were  sending  two 
preachers,  Blom  and  Selyns,  both  of  whom  "  said  that  they 

"  a  Lutheran  Preacher,  Goetwater,  arrived,  to  the  great  joy  of  the  Lutherans 
and  the  especial  discontent  and  disappointment  of  the  congregation  of  this 
place  ;  yea,  of  the  whole  land,  even  the  English.  We  went  to  the  Director 
General,"  who  summoned  Goetwater,  and  found  that  he  had  as  credentials 
only  a  letter  from  a  Lutheran  consistory  in  Europe  to  the  Lutheran  Church 
in  New  Amsterdam.  The  governor  ordered  him  not  to  preach,  even  in  a 
private  house.  The  Domines  lament,  "We  already  have  the  snake  in  our 
bosom,"  and  urge  Stuyvesant  to  open  the  consistory's  letter,  which,  oddly 
enough,  he  refused  to  do,  but  consented  to  the  ministers'  demand  that  Goet- 
water be  sent  back  in  the  ship  that  brought  him.  "  Now  this  Lutheran 
parson,"  the  Dutch  ministers  conclude,  "is  a  man  of  a  godless  and  scanda- 
lous life  ;  a  rolling,  rollicking,  unseemly  carl ;  who  is  more  inclined  to  look 
into  the  wine-can  than  to  pore  over  the  Bible,  and  would  rather  drink  a  kan 
of  brandy  for  two  hours  than  preach  one." 

1  Colonial  History,  XIV,  418,  421,  451,  461 ;  O'Callaghan,  II,  345. 


316  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

would  make  no  difficulty  about  the  formula  of  baptism,"  and 
they  were  also  sending  books  containing  the  old  formula 
to  be  given  to  Megapolensis  and  Drisius,  "  that  they  may 
use  it,  and  carry  out  our  good  intentions,  which  they  must 
not  oppose." 

The  incident  illustrates  quite  strikingly  the  religious 
powers  of  a  commercial  company,  and  puts  in  contrast  the 
desire  to  placate  the  Lutheran  conscience  and  willingness 
to  coerce  that  of  their  own  ministers.  Still  another  contrast 
is  exhibited  in  the  same  letter,  which  urged  complacency 
to  the  Lutherans,  by  refusing  similar  regard  for  the  English 
settlers  in  the  colony.  With  a  notable  liberality  of  mind 
which  their  successors  of  a  hundred  years  later  might  have 
copied  to  their  advantage,  the  two  Dutch  ministers  had  urged 
the  sending  two  English  preachers,  to  be  located  in  the 
English  villages.  This  the  directors  refused,  on  account  of 
"the  condition  of  England,"  but  would  try  to  find  among 
the  Dutch  candidates  some  one  who  could  preach  English."  ] 

The  next  religionists  to  feel  the  heavy  hand  of  Stuyvesant 
Jews.  were  the  Jews.2  In  1654  he  wrote  to  the  company,  request- 

ing that  no  Jews  be  permitted  "  to  infest  New  Netherland." 
To  this  the  company  answered  that  the  request  was  "  un- 
reasonable and  unjust,"  and  that  Jews  should  be  permitted 
to  go  to  the  colony,  on  condition  of  taking  care  of  their  own 
poor,  "  without  giving  the  said  Jews  a  claim  to  the  privilege 
of  exercising  their  religion  in  a  synagogue,  or  at  a  gathering. 
If  they  desire  that,  refer  them  to  us." 

Stuyvesant,  however,  was  a  decided  anti-Semite  and  con- 
trived to  put  many  hardships  on  the  Jews.  He  refused, 
"  for  pregnant  reasons,"  to  allow  a  deed  to  be  given  to  a  Jew, 
who  had  bought  land  in  Manhattan  ;  and  forbade  the  Jews  to 
trade  at  Fort  Orange  and  South  River.  For  such  conduct 
he  was  rated  sharply  by  the  company,  who  ordered  that  the 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  451. 

2  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  p.  193 ;  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV, 
341,  351. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  317 

Jews  should  have  in  the  colony  the  same  liberties  as  they 
possessed  in  Holland,  except  that  of  having  a  synagogue, 
and  "may  exercise  in  all  quietness  their  religion  within 
their  houses." 

In  the  meantime  trouble  arose  for  the  governor  in  another 
quarter.1     The  two  ministers  of  the  Dutch  had  heard  that 
one  Wickendam,  a  Baptist,  had  been  holding  unlawful  ser- 
vices, and  they  complained  to  the  council  that,  "  during  the 
absence  of  Do.  Moore   from   Middlebush,  some  unqualified 
persons  ventured  to  hold  conventicles,  and  assumed  to  preach  Conventi- 
the  gospel,  from  which  nothing  could  be  expected  but  dis-  cles' 
cord,  confusion,  and  disorder  in  Church  and  State." 

This  complaint  drew  from  the  council  the  stringent  "  Or- 
dinance against  Conventicles,"  adopted  February  1,  1656, 
which  ran:  "Some  unqualified  persons  in  such  Meetings 
assume  the  ministerial  office,  the  expounding  and  explana- 
tion of  the  Holy  Word  of  God,  without  being  called  or 
appointed  thereto  by  ecclesiastical  or  civil  authority,  which 
is  in  direct  contravention  and  opposition  to  the  general  Civil 
and  Ecclesiastical  order  of  our  Fatherland,  besides  that  many 
dangerous  Heresies  and  Schisms  are  to  be  apprehended: 
Therefore,  the  director  general  and  council  .  .  .  absolutely 
and  expressly  forbid  all  such  Conventicles  and  Meetings, 
whether  public  or  private,  differing  from  the  customary,  and 
not  only  lawful  but  scripturally  founded  and  ordained,  Meet- 
ings of  the  Reformed  Divine  Service,  as  this  is  observed  .  .  . 
according  to  the  synod  of  Dordrecht."  The  penalties  im- 
posed by  the  act  were  <£100  Flemish  for  the  preacher  and 
£25  for  every  attendant. 

Under  this  act  William  Hallett,  sheriff  of  Flushing,  who 
had  allowed  such  meetings  in  his  house,  was  deprived  of 
office  and  fined  <£50.  In  default  of  payment  he  was 
to  be  banished.  The  preacher,  Wickendam,  was  fined 
£100  and  sent  out  of  the  country.  Henry  Townsend 

1  O'Callaghan,  II,  316,  321 ;  Laws  of  New  Netherland;  Colonial  History 
of  New  York,  XIV,  337,  369. 


318  KISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  Rustdorp  was  convicted  of  having  had  "prayer  meet- 
ings in  his  house  "  and  condemned  to  a  fine  of  £8  pounds 
Flemish;  failing  which  he  was  to  be  whipped  and  ban- 
ished. 

This  persecution  for  irregular  worship  presently  ran  into 
the  furious  onslaught  upon  the  Quakers,  who  had  appeared 
in  the  colony  about  the  same  time  as  the  wandering  Baptist 
preacher,  and  whose  proceedings  could  come  under  the 
Conventicle  Act.  Against  the  Quakers  Stuyvesant  was 
"  exceedingly  mad."  Ten  of  them  came  to  New  Amsterdam 
from  Boston  in  1657,  and  were  immediately  arrested  and 
jailed.1  As  with  the  Boston  magistrates,  the  Dutch  governor 
did  not  propose  to  wait  for  any  overt  act.  Their  mere 
presence  was  an  offence  and  danger. 

One  of  their  number,  Hodsham,  escaped  and  went  to 
Hempstead,  where  the  magistrates  issued  a  proclamation 
against  him  and  his  services.  They  arrested  him,  seized  his 
papers  and  Bible,  and  fined  two  women  who  had  entertained 
him,  and  then  took  all  three  to  New  Amsterdam  for  the 
disposal  of  the  governor.  Stuyvesant  threw  Hodsham  into 
jail,  and  had  him  condemned  to  two  years  hard  labor,  "  at 
the  wheel-barrow  with  a  negro."  The  man  either  unable  or 
refusing  to  work,  the  governor  caused  him  to  be  beaten  un- 
mercifully, several  successive  days,  and  to  be  strung  up  by 
his  hands  with  a  log  tied  to  his  feet.  He  was  finally  released 
because  of  the  intercession  of  Stuyvesant's  sister. 
L  This  severity  had  its  natural  issue  of  spreading  the  perse- 
cuted opinions,  which  found  many  adherents  at  Flushing  and 
Jamaica.  The  council  sent  (1660)  Domine  Drisius  to  Jamaica 
to  "  inquire  about  the  Quakers  and  their  friends." 2  Two  years 
afterward,  the  magistrates  of  Jamaica  reported  to  Stuyvesant 
that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  town  were  adherents  of 
the  Quakers.3  The  absurd  order  was  sent  to  the  constables 
to  arrest  all  such  persons. 

1  O'Callaghan,  II,  347.  2  Colonial  History,  XIV,  490. 

*  Ibid,  p.  515. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  319 

A  similar  order  had  been  sent  (1658)  to  Flushing,  in  Flushing, 
response  to  which  the  people  of  the  town  presented  to  the 
council  a  remonstrance,1  refusing  to  execute  the  law  against 
the  Quakers.  "Therefore,"  they  said,  "if  any  of  these 
persons  come  in  love  unto  us,  we  can  not  in  conscience  lay 
violent  hands  upon  them,  but  give  them  free  Egresse  and 
Regresse  into  our  town  and  houses,  as  God  shall  persuade 
our  consciences,  and  in  this  we  are  true  subjects  both  of 
Church  and  State,  for  we  are  bound  by  the  law  of  God  and 
man  to  do  good  unto  all  men  and  evil  to  no  man."  This 
remonstrance  was  read  to  the  council  by  the  sheriff  of  Flush- 
ing, Tobias  Feake,  who  was  at  once  put  in  jail,  whither 
Edward  Hart,  the  clerk,  was  sent  to  keep  him  company. 
Feake  was  soon  released,  but  Hart  was  kept  three  weeks. 
The  magistrates  of  the  town  were  suspended  from  office,  and 
Flushing  was  forbidden  to  hold  town  meetings  without  the 
special  permission  of  the  governor  and  council.  Feake,  who 
had  added  to  his  offence  touching  the  remonstrance,  that  of 
"  lodging  some  of  the  abominable  sect  called  Quakers,"  was 
removed  from  the  shrievalty  and  fined  200  guilders.  Should 
he  refuse  to  pay  the  fine,  he  was  to  be  banished. 

Henry  Townsend  of  Rustdorp,  notwithstanding  his  expe- 
rience of  two  years  before,  continued  to  have  prayer  meet- 
ings in  his  house,  and  joined  himself  to  the  Quakers.  For 
this  he  was  fined  300  guilders,  and  on  refusing  to  pay,  was 
"  cast  into  a  miry  dungeon."  2  Tilton,  the  clerk  of  Graves- 
end,  who  had  "  dared  to  provide  a  Quaker  woman  with  lodg- 
ing," was  fined  £12  Flemish.  In  1661,  Henry  Townsend, 
John  Townsend,  and  Tilton  were  all  banished  for  "  harboring 
Quakers  "  ;  3  and  it  was  ordered  that  soldiers  be  quartered  on 
all  inhabitants  of  Rustdorp,  who  did  not  promise  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  Quakers. 

In  the  next  year  the  authorities  resorted  to  frantic  meas- 
ures of  repression.  A  proclamation  was  issued  forbidding 

1  Colonial  History,  XIV,  402 ;  O'Callaghan,  II,  351. 

2  O'Callaghan,  II,  352.  8  Ibid.,  II,  450. 


320  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  public  exercise  of  any  other  than  the  Reformed  religion, 
"  either  in  houses,  barns,  ships,  or  yachts ;  in  the  woods  or 
fields,"  under  penalty;  for  the  first  offence,  of  50  guilders 
fine ;  for  the  second  offence,  100  guilders ;  and  for  the  third, 
200  guilders  fine,  with  "arbitrary  correction."  To  import 
or  distribute  Quaker  books  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of  150 
guilders,  while  to  receive  such  books  subjected  the  recipient 
to  a  fine  of  50  guilders.  All  persons  arriving  at  New  Am- 
sterdam were  to  register  and  take  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
under  the  penalty  of  50  guilders  fine  and  "  arbitrary  correc- 
tion." All  magistrates  conniving  at  a  violation  of  this  ordi- 
nance were  to  be  degraded  and  made  incapable  of  holding 
office.1 

The  climax  to  these  high-handed  measures  was  reached 
Bowne.  through  the  action  and  experience  of  John  Bowne  of  Flush- 
ing. One  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  citizens  of  that  pro- 
gressive and  liberal-minded  little  burgh,  he  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  concerned  with  the  Quaker  movement  until  after 
the  issuance  of  Stuyvesant's  proclamation.2  Then,  as  though 
prompted  to  bear  testimony  against  such  persecution,  he  an- 
nounced himself  a  Quaker,  and  made  his  house  a  home  for 
any  of  the  persecuted  sect  who  might  come  to  the  town.  On 
this  he  was  arrested  and  fined  .£25.  He  refused  to  pay  and 
was  thrown  into  prison.  He  lay  in  prison  several  months, 
and  was  then  sent  by  the  governor  to  Holland.  Doubtless 
this  deportation  was  considered  by  Stuyvesant  as  a  final  rid- 
dance, but  it  enabled  Bowne  to  bring  the  issue  to  a  prompt 
decision  by  the  governor's  superiors,  and  to  Stuyvesant's 
complete  discomfiture. 

On  arrival  in  Holland,  Bowne  at  once  appealed  to  the  West 
India  Company  with  the  statement  of  his  own  wrongs  and  the 
sufferings  of  his  fellow-religionists,  securing  from  the  com- 
pany a  sharp  rebuke  to  Stuyvesant  and  a  disallowance  of  all 
his  persecuting  measures.  Under  date  of  April  16,  1663,  the 

1  O'Callaghan,  II,  454, 

2  Ibid.,  II,  454-457  ;  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  XIV,  526. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  321 

directors  wrote  to  the  governor :  "  We  heartily  desire  that 
these  and  other  sectaries  had  remained  away,  .  .  .  yet  we 
doubt  very  much  whether  we  can  proceed  against  them  vig- 
orously, without  diminishing  the  population  and  stopping 
emigration.  In  the  youth  of  your  existence  you  ought  rather 
encourage  than  check  the  population  of  the  colony.  .  .  .  The 
consciences  of  men  ought  to  be  free  and  unshackled  so  long 
as  they  continue  moderate,  peaceable,  inoffensive,  and  not 
hostile  to  the  government.  .  .  .  You  may  therefore  shut  your 
eyes,  at  least  not  force  people's  consciences,  but  allow  every 
one  to  have  his  own  belief,  so  long  as  he  behaves  quietly.  .  .  . 
Such  have  been  the  maxims  of  prudence  and  toleration,  by 
which  the  magistrates  of  this  city  have  been  governed ;  and 
the  consequences  have  been  that  the  oppressed  and  perse- 
cuted from  every  country  have  found  among  us  an  asylum 
from  distress.  Follow  in  the  same  steps,  and  you  will  be 
blessed." 

So  ended  the  persecution  of  the  Quakers  and  all  persecu- 
tion in  New  Netherland,  of  which  it  is  evidently  to  be  noted 
that  the  spirit  of  it  was  altogether  Stuyvesant's.  It  may  be 
regarded  as  certain  that,  as  his  superiors  did  not  approve,  so 
his  associates  in  the  colony  were  not  in  sympathy  with  him 
in  his  oppressive  course,  and  were  coerced  into  their  agreement 
by  the  dignity  of  his  office  and  the  violence  of  his  temper. 
Stuyvesant's  fierce  bigotry  was  singular  among  the  Dutchmen 
of  that  day,  and  the  reader  wonders  that  he  should  have 
been  so  blind  as  not  to  see  that  his  course  would  be  disowned 
by  the  company  in  Holland.  Probably,  at  so  great  a  distance 
from  his  masters  and  left  to  his  own  discretion  in  so  many 
affairs,  he  grew  to  regard  himself  as  an  autocrat  and  his  own 
opinions  as  supreme.  By  whatever  process,  he  prepared  for 
himself  a  humiliation  public  and  stinging,  such  as  rarely  has 
been  experienced  by  a  governor  not  dismissed  in  disgrace. 

It  is  well  to  remark  this  personal  quality  in  the  harsh 
religious  measures  of  his  term  of  power.  Such  measures  did 
not  belong  to  the  policy  of  the  government.  The  founders 


322  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  the  colony,  while  all  in  the  Reformed  communion,  and 
while  seeking  that  their  colony  should  maintain  a  Reformed 
establishment,  had  yet  no  purpose  of  coercion  toward  dis- 
sent. They  had  no  theocratic  principle  to  express  in  legisla- 
tion, and  gave  to  the  religious  affairs  of  New  Netherlands  the 
forms  of  an  established  Church,  simply  for  the  reason  that 
they,  with  almost  all  of  Christendom  of  the  day,  looked  upon 
the  state  as  in  every  place  vested  with  a  care  for  the  Church. 
Except  for  Stuyvesant,  "  running  before  he  was  sent,"  never 
in  the  fifty  years  of  Dutch  rule  in  America  would  any  sec- 
tary have  felt  an  oppressive  hand. 

We  can  well  imagine  that  the  reproof  from  Holland  must 
have  been  a  bitter  morsel  for  the  fiery  govornor  to  digest,  but 
he  had  other  and  more  serious  troubles  to  disturb  him  pres- 
Engiish  ently.  Not  long  afterward  (1664)  the  English  fleet  sailed 
into  the  harbor  and  compelled  surrender  of  the  colony,  a  sur- 
render almost  welcomed  by  many  of  the  people,  because  of 
Stuyvesant's  despotic  ways.  So  ended  the  history  of  New 
Netherland,  giving  place  to  New  York,  save  for  the  brief  re- 
turn of  Dutch  power  in  1673  and  1674. 

Our  narrative  may  here  anticipate  that  period,  and,  before 
regarding  the  incidents  of  English  rule  in  the  ecclesiastical 
affairs  of  New  York,  look  at  some  religious  features  in  the 
story  of  that  Dutch  return.  When  Evertsen  and  Colve  came 
to  New  York  in  1673,  captured  it  without  a  blow  and  turned 
it  to  New  Amsterdam  again  for  a  little  season,  they  undoubt- 
edly thought  that  the  conquest  was  to  be  permanent.  With 
this  thought  the  intention  took  form  to  secure  also  the  perma- 
nency of  the  Reformed  Church  establishment,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  did  not  hesitate  to  give  expression  to  toler- 
ance toward  all  forms  of  dissent.  In  this  latter  particular 
the  legislature  under  Colve  went  further  than  any  of  its 
predecessors. 

This  care  for  the  establishment  at  once  expressed  itself  in 
a  renewal  of  the  ordinance  of  1651,  requiring  that  all  mag- 
istrates should  be  "  exclusively  of  the  Reformed  Christian 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  323 

Religion,  or  at  least  well  affected  thereto."  This  action  was 
repeated  in  the  next  year.1  On  these  magistrates  it  was  made 
obligatory  that  they  "shall,  each  in  his  quality,  take  care  that 
the  Reformed  Christian  Religion  be  maintained  in  conformity 
to  the  Synod  of  Dordrecht,  without  permitting  any  other 
Sects  attempting  anything  contrary  thereto."  This  order, 
taken  in  October,  1673,  was  repeated  in  the  next  month  and 
again  enacted  in  the  following  January.2  In  consistency 
with  this  order  the  commissioners,  sent  in  1673  to  Fort 
Nassau  and  South  River,  were  instructed  that  their  duty  was, 
to  take  care,  "  First,  that  the  pure,  true  Christian  Religion, 
agreeably  to  the  Synod  of  Dordrecht,  shall  be  taught  and 
maintained  in  all  things  as  it  ought,  without  suffering  any 
the  slightest  attempt  to  be  made  against  it  by  any  other 
sectaries."  The  same  instruction  was  sent  to  the  magistrates 
of  Brooklyn  and  the  other  towns  on  Long  Island,  and  of  the 
settlements  up  the  Hudson.3 

Along  with  these  tokens  of  a  purpose  to  conserve  the 
Reformed  establishment,  appear  the  evidences  of  a  very 
tolerant  spirit.4  From  the  legislature  of  1673,  the  delegates 
from  Fort  Orange,  "  lately  called  Albany,"  among  other  con- 
ditions demanded,  "  That  conscience  shall  not  be  subjected  to 
any  constraint,  as  there  are  some  here  of  different  opinions, 
who  have  intermarried,  but  that  every  one  shall  be  permitted 
to  go  where  he  pleases  to  hear  the  Word  of  God."  To  this 
demand  the  response  was,  "  Granted ;  and  the  Commandant 
and  Magistrates  are  ordered  to  pay  attention  to  it."  To  the 
towns  in  the  east  of  Long  Island,  on  their  submitting  to  the 
reestablished  Dutch  rule,  there  was  allowed  "  Freedom  of 
Conscience  in  the  Word  of  God  and  Church  discipline."  The 
same  was  allowed  to  the  settlers  on  South  River,  in  reply  to 
their  petition:  and  to  English  settlers  in  Jersey  there  was 

1  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  pp.  473,  515. 
zlbid.,  pp.  476,  485,  512. 

8  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  618,  620,  653. 
*  Ibid.,  I,  584,  593,  605. 


324  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  accorded  Freedom  of  Conscience  as  the  same  is  permitted 
in  the  Netherlands."  l  But  to  these  towns  thus  made  free  in 
the  exercise  of  religious  worship,  it  was  commanded  that  their 
choice  of  magistrates  should  be  restricted,  according  to  the 
statute,  to  "  such  only  as  are  of  the  Reformed  Christian 
Religion,  or  at  least  well  affected  thereto."2 

Notwithstanding  an  apparent  contradiction  between  these 
grants  of  freedom  and  some  of  the  stringent  terms  requiring 
the  maintenance  of  the  Reformed  Church,  it  is  but  fair  to 
presume  that  no  curtailing  of  the  allowed  religious  liberty 
was  designed;  and  that  "any  attempt  against  it  by  other 
sectaries  "  had  in  view,  not  the  orderly  independent  services, 
but  the  possibility  of  invasion  by  the  sectaries  on  the  service 
of  the  established  Church. 

Of  other  religious  action  by  Colve's  government  one  item 
may  be  cited  for  its  ferocity.  There  had  been  some  disorder 
in  New  Amsterdam  and  martial  law  had  been  proclaimed. 
Under  such  rule  it  was  ordered,  with  a  Puritanical  zeal 
worthy  of  early  Massachusetts  and  of  Dale's  "Lawes  Martiall 
and  Morall "  in  Virginia,  that  "  Whosoever  blasphemes  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  or  His  holy  Word,  shall  be,  for  the  first 
offence,  fined  and  committed  three  days  to  prison  on  bread 
and  water;  and,  for  the  second  offence,  shall  have  his  tongue 
bored  with  a  red  hot  iron,  and  he  shall  furthermore  be  ban- 
ished out  of  this  government  and  the  United  Provinces,  as  a 
villain."3  On  one  occasion  Colve  exercised  an  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  degrading  for  one  year  a  Lutheran  minister, 
Fabricius,  who  had  married  parties  without  publishing  banns. 
After  the  year  he  must  apply  for  a  special  license  in  order  to 
preach.  The  language  used  indicates  the  governor's  purpose, 
not  to  silence  a  sectary,  but  to  suspend  a  minister  from  his 
spiritual  office.4  Colve  also  showed  his  care  for  the  State- 
Church  in  obtaining  from  the  council  an  order  for  the  pay- 
ment out  of  public  funds  of  all  arrears  of  salary  to  the  widow 

1  Laws  of  New  Netherland,  p.  467.  *  Ibid.,  I,  623. 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  586.          *  Ibid.,  I,  693 ;  XII,  612. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  325 

of  Do.  Megapolensis,  "about  to  return  to  Patria";   and  to 
Do.  Samuel  Megapolensis,  then  settled  in  the  colony.1 

With  this  pleasing  evidence  of  desire  to  see  justice  done,  Colve 
ended  his  care  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  New  Netherland,  and 
presently,  surrendering  his  government,  ended  also  this  short 
Dutch  episode.  With  the  peace  of  1674  between  England  and 
Holland  the  colony  was  returned  to  English  hands,  and  reas- 
sumed  the  name  of  New  York,  so  to  remain  under  the  British 
rule  until  the  era  of  American  Independence. 

With  the  fall  of  the  Dutch  power,  fell  also  the  Reformed  Fail  of 
Church   from   its  position  of  a  State  establishment.     This,  f^1^ 
indeed,  was  the  immediate  result  of  Stuyvesant's  surrender  ment. 
in  1664,  to  be  made  final  and  complete  by  the  return  of  the 
English,  ten  years  later,  after  their  short-lived  banishment. 

This  disestablishment  of  the  Dutch  Church  did  not,  how- 
ever, place  it  on  a  level  with  other  non- Anglican  commun- 
ions in  New  York.  In  the  "  articles  of  Capitulation,"  in 
1664,  it  was  specifically  agreed  that,  "The  Dutch  here  shall  Dutch 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  their  Consciences  in  Divine  Worship  and  Pnvlleses- 
Church  discipline."  2  The  intent  of  this  agreement  was  that 
the  Reformed  Church  should  enjoy  a  complete  autonomy  in 
its  own  affairs,  and  not  be  subjected  to  the  interference  by 
the  magistrates,  which  other  Churches  were  compelled  to 
submit  to  until  near  the  end  of  the  colonial  period.  The 
principles  thus  obtaining  were  in  the  main  respected  by  the 
English  governors,  though  some  departures  will  appear.  The 
Dutch  themselves  were  so  jealous  and  watchful  for  these 
rights,  that,  on  the  resumption  of  the  province  by  the  Eng- 
lish, they  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  king  of 
England,  until  assured  in  writing  "  that  the  Articles  of  Sur- 
render are  not  in  the  least  broken,  or  intended  to  be  broken, 
by  any  words  or  expression  in  the  said  oath."3 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  I,  722. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  251 ;  O'Callaghan,  II,  533. 

8  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  74-76  ;  Corwin,  History  of  Reformed 
Church,  p.  63.    (American  Church  History  Series,  Vol.  IX.) 


326  RISE  OE  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  agreement  at  the  second  surrender  to  the  English  was 
made  by  Colve  and  Andros,  and  each  consented  to  the  stipu- 
lation of  the  other.  In  regard  to  Church  affairs  and  the 
rights  of  the  Dutch,  Colve  insisted  "  that  the  Inhabitants  of 
Dutch  Nativity  may  be  allowed  to  retain  their  customary 
Church  privileges  in  Divine  Service  and  Church  discipline." 
To  this  Andros  added,  "  The  usual  discipline  of  their  Church 
is  to  be  continued  to  them  as  formerly." 

To  return  now  to  the  surrender  of  1664,  the  first  English 
governor,  Nicholls,  on  entrance  to  office  published  his  "In- 
The  structions"  from  the  Duke  of  York,  to  whom  Charles  had 

Laws*"' S  given  the  province.  In  these  were  recited,  "  The  Conditions 
for  new  planters  in  the  territories  of  his  royal  highness,  the 
duke  of  York."  Among  these  conditions,  with  an  undoubted 
intent  to  make  the  first  step  toward  tolerance  of  Roman 
Catholics,  it  was  prescribed  that,  "  In  all  the  territories  of  his 
Royal  Highness  liberty  of  conscience  is  allowed,  provided 
such  liberty  is  not  converted  to  licentiousness  or  the  disturb- 
ance of  others  in  the  exercise  of  the  protestant  religion. 
Every  township  is  obliged  to  pay  their  minister,  according  to 
such  agreement  as  they  shall  make  with  him,  and  no  man 
shall  refuse  his  proportion ;  the  minister  being  elected  by  the 
major  part  of  the  householders,  inhabitants  of  the  town." 1 

The  Duke's  laws,  touching  upon  Church  affairs,2  further 
provided  that  a  Church  building  with  a  seating  capacity  for 
two  hundred  should  be  erected  in  every  parish ;  that  the  cost 
of  such  building  and  of  the  support  of  the  minister  should  be 
raised  by  public  tax ;  that  "  every  inhabitant  shall  contribute 
to  all  charges  both  in  Church  and  State ; "  that  preachers 
must  produce  to  the  governor  certificates  of  ordination  by 
some  Protestant  bishop  or  minister,  on  which  the  governor 
shall  induct  them  in  their  pastorates ;  that  the  minister  must 
administer  the  Lord's  Supper  at  least  once  a  year,  and 
must  not  refuse  baptism  to  a  child  of  Christian  parents; 

1  Smith,  History  of  New  York,  I,  39. 

2  Corwin,  Reformed  Church,  pp.  66-68. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  327 

"nor  shall  any  person  be  molested,  fined,  or  imprisoned, 
for  differing  in  judgment  in  matters  of  religion,  who  pro- 
fesses Christianity." 

Besides  this  breadth  of  tolerance,  unwonted  at  the  time, 
the  instructions  and  laws  of  the  duke  are  notable  in  that  they 
do  not  surrender  civil  control  over  religious  affairs.  The 
unique  character  of  this  position  is  in  the  assumption  of  civil 
power  of  direction  over  all  sects.  No  individual  Church  is 
sought  to  be  thereby  established,  and  the  legal  effect  was  to 
establish  religion  as  such,  by  whatever  Churches  it  might  be 
represented.  The  vast  majority  of  the  population  were,  of 
course,  Dutch,  and  any  Church  organized  by  them  would  be 
Reformed.  Other  settlers  were  expected  and  came  from  Eng- 
land in  the  immediately  following  years.  But  the  duke's 
laws  do  not  specify  to  either  nationality  the  particular  Church,  Freedom 
only  that  there  must  be  a  Church  of  some  kind  in  every  town.  a.n?  estab" 

•     ,  *  lisnmeut. 

Here  is  an  establishment  without  a  name. 

This  further  appears  in  the  making  Church  expenses  a 
public  charge,  in  directing  as  to  minutice  of  Church  services, 
in  prescribing  an  examination  and  approval  by  the  governor 
of  ministerial  credentials,  and  finally  in  the  putting  into  the 
governor's  hands  the  right  and  power  of  induction. 

Such  arrangements  virtually  made  the  head  of  the  civil 
government  the  head  also  of  the  Church,  not  specifically  the 
Reformed  or  Anglican,  but  every  Church  in  the  province ! 
Theoretically,  this  situation  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  entire 
history  of  Church  and  State.  Elsewhere  the  idea  of  civil 
power  over  the  Church  always  involved  the  legal  preference 
of  one  Church,  accompanied  by  either  the  proscription,  or 
modified  tolerance,  of  all  others.  Singular  as  the  relation 
was,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  early  governors  of  New  York 
frequently  acted  upon  the  supposition  of  its  propriety  and 
validity,  up  to  the  time  of  the  abortive  endeavors  of  Fletcher 
to  establish  the  Church  of  England. 

Nicholls,  who  published  the  duke's  instructions,  noted  his 
first  use  of  ecclesiastical  authority  by  ordering  the  city  to  pay 


328 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


James's 
proclama- 
tion of 
liberty. 


the  salary  of  the  Dutch  minister.1  His  successor,  Lovelace, 
extended  his  protection  over  the  Lutherans  in  1666,  forbidding 
all  interference  with  them,  "  so  long  as  they  live  quietly  and 
in  order."2  In  1670  Lovelace  directed  that  the  Church  at 
Albany  (Reformed)  should  be  maintained  "  as  the  established 
Church,"  and  guaranteed  support  to  any  minister  who  would 
come  over  as  assistant  to  Domine  Drisius.  This  brought 
over  William  Nieuwenhuysen,  to  whom  the  promise  of  main- 
tenance was  not  well  kept.3  In  1671  Lovelace  wrote  to  the 
minister  and  Church  of  Southold  a  letter  of  reproof  for  hav- 
ing distressed  a  Mr.  Booth  for  rates.  In  so  doing  the  Church 
and  town  magistrates  were  clearly  within  the  law  requiring 
every  inhabitant  to  contribute  to  Church  support.  But  this 
Booth  was  an  Episcopalian,  in  whose  defence  the  governor 
was  willing  to  wrest  the  law,  and  to  upbraid  the  Church  with 
their  "  misuse  of  the  liberty  given  to  their  opinion,"  threaten- 
ing them  also  with  the  loss  of  that  liberty.*  This  was  the 
first  recorded  instance  of  gubernational  perversions  of  law  in 
favor  of  episcopacy,  which  were  quite  frequent  during  the 
English  sway. 

It  would  be  tedious,  and  is  altogether  needless,  to  recite  all 
the  instances  of  interference  by  the  New  York  governors  with 
the  affairs  of  the  ministry  and  the  Churches,  or  of  their  action 
against  the  law  in  favor  of  their  own  preferred  Church  order. 
Sufficient  witness  of  these  things  will  appear  in  the  more 
important  incidents  which  illustrate  the  ruling  principle  of 
the  government  on  religious  matters. 

The  reappearance  of  English  power  in  1674  was  with  the 
proclamation  of  the  broadest  kind  of  liberty  of  opinion. 
James's  instructions  to  Governor  Andros  ran,  "You  shall 
perraitt  all  persons  of  what  Religion  soever,  quietly  to  inhabitt 
within  the  precincts  of  your  jurisdiccon,  without  giveing  them 

1  Corwin,  p.  68. 

2  Colonial  History,  XIV,  626. 

8  Ibid.,  Ill,  189  ;  Corwin,  p.  69. 

*  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  209. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  329 

any  disturbance  or  disquiet  whatever  for,  or  by  reason  of, 
their  differing  opinions  in  matters  of  Religion :  Provided  they 
give  noe  disturbance  to  ye  publique  peace,  nor  doe  molest  or 
disquiet  others  in  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion." 1 

This  breadth  of  toleration  has  frequently  been  cited  against 
the  memory  of  James,  as  something  arguing  a  specious  and 
deceptive  intent,  in  like  manner  that  his  efforts  toward 
toleration  in  England  have  been  charged  to  an  innate  false- 
hood of  mind.  It  is  remembered  that  James  was  a  Romanist, 
and  supposed  that  he  was  a  bigoted  one  at  that,  from  which 
the  usual  conclusion  has  been  made  that  this  proclamation  of 
liberty  of  conscience  was  a  mere  blind ;  that  under  the  cover 
of  it  he  might  make  an  asylum  for  distressed  Catholics  in  his 
new  dominions.  This  conclusion  drew  with  it  the  inference 
that,  when  the  Catholic  representation  in  the  colony  should 
become  large  enough  to  permit,  he  would  turn  the  govern- 
ment into  "  papistical "  hands  and  withdraw  the  ordinance 
of  toleration. 

All  of  which  supposition  may  be  true,  as  an  outline  of  the 
duke's  desire.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  record 
and  is  nothing  more  than  a  supposition  of  what  might  have 
taken  place  on  the  possible  occurrence  of  a  situation  which 
was  never  reached.  James  made  no  expression,  at  least  as 
preserved  to  us,  indicating  any  such  treacherous  purpose. 
What  he  said  and  did  in  the  matter  was  altogether  honorable, 
and  far  in  advance  of  the  toleration  accorded  by  his  son-in- 
law,  William,  the  idol  of  seventeenth  century  Protestantism. 

Certainly,  it  is  not  to  be  charged  to  him  as  a  crime  or  as  a 
proof  of  treacherous  intent,  that  he  sought  to  make  a  safe 
retreat  for  the  oppressed  followers  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
Himself  a  devout  Catholic,  it  would  have  been  strange,  and  sincerity  of 
would  have  been  just  cause  for  reproach,  if,  with  this  au-  James- 
thority  over  a  princely  domain,  he  had  not  bethought  him 
of  the  opportunity  to  afford  his  co-religionists  an  asylum.     It 
would  not  redound  to  his  honor,  if  he,  a  Catholic  prince,  had 
i  Colonial  History,  III,  218. 


330 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Andros. 


Presenta- 
tion. 


put  into  the  charter  of  New  York  liberties  the  words,  "  except 
Papists,"  so  common  with  the  men  of  the  day,  who  were 
loudest  in  their  demands  for  freedom  of  conscience.  The 
last  of  the  Stuart  kings  has  enough  to  answer  for  at  the  bar 
of  history,  without  depriving  him  of  the  honorable  record 
made  by  all  his  actions  in  regard  to  religious  freedom  in  his 
province  of  New  York,  notwithstanding  its  unlikeness  to  other 
portions  of  his  record. 

Almost  at  once  that  Andros  assumed  his  government  in 
New  York,  he  found  occasion  to  exercise  his  supposed  right 
of  presentation  and  that  in  the  Reformed  Church.1  A  cer- 
tain Nicholas  van  Rensselaer,  a  native  of  Holland  and  licen- 
tiate of  the  classis  of  Amsterdam,  but  whether  related  or 
not  to  the  patroon  of  Rensselaerwyck  does  not  appear,  went 
to  London  in  the  train  of  Charles  II.  at  the  time  of  the  Res- 
toration. He  was  permitted  to  preach  in  London  and  was 
ordained  a  deacon  by  the  bishop  of  Salisbury.  He  did  not 
appear  in  New  York  until  1674,  when,  it  is  probable,  he  came 
over  with  Governor  Andros,  bringing  with  him  a  recom- 
mendation from  the  duke  of  York  to  some  "  benefice  "  in  the 
province.  He  was  sent  by  Andros  to  Albany  as  colleague  to 
the  minister  there,  with  a  somewhat  peremptory  command 
to  receive  him  as  a  co-pastor.  The  governor  wrote  to  the 
Church  that  Van  Rensselaer  had  "made  his  humble  request 
.  .  .  whereunto  I  have  consented.  I  do  hereby  desire  you 
to  signify  the  same  unto  the  Parishioners  .  .  .  wherein  I 
shall  looke  upon  their  compliance  as  a  mark  of  their  respect 
and  good  inclinations  towards  me.  23  July,  1674." 

This  was  a  sufficiently  imperious  message  to  begin  with,  at 
the  opening  of  his  administration,  in  dealing  with  a  Church 
which  had  prided  itself  on  submitting  to  even  the  Dutch 
governors  only  as  they  were  themselves  supposed  to  be  sub- 
missive to  the  classis  of  Amsterdam.  The  Albany  Church 
declined  to  receive  the  candidate,  in  which  refusal  minister, 


1  Corwin,  Reformed  Church,  p.  73 ;  Smith,  History  of  New  York,  I,  49 ; 
Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  225. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  331 

magistrates,  and  people  were  agreed.  It  was  denied  that  he 
had  a  right  to  administer  the  sacraments  in  their  Church, 
because  he  had  been  episcopally  ordained;  and  he  was  not 
permitted  to  even  preach  until  he  promised  to  submit  to  the 
classis. 

Andros  was  incensed,  and  summoned  Nieuwenhuysen,  the 
Albany  minister,  to  answer  before  him  for  contempt,  with  the 
result  of  arousing  great  public  indignation  both  at  Albany 
and  at  New  York.  Meanwhile  Van  Rensselaer  preached  at 
Albany  and  was  thrown  into  jail  by  the  magistrates,  for 
"  several  dubious  words  "  in  his  sermon,  and  thereupon  the 
governor  felt  still  more  outraged  and  issued  warrants  for  the 
arrest  of  the  magistrates  and  to  put  them  under  <£5000  bonds 
to  show  cause  for  their  conduct.  The  celebrated  Leisler 
took  part  with  the  offending  officers  and  was  imprisoned  by 
order  of  Andros. 

But  the  governor  could  not  enforce  his  will.  After  much 
commotion  he  gave  up  the  case  altogether,  "referring"  it, 
for  form's  sake,  "  to  the  Consistory  of  the  Church  of  Albany." 
Inasmuch  as  the  said  consistory  had  already  made  its  opin- 
ions very  clearly  known,  this  reference  was  but  a  euphemism 
to  signify  the  striking  of  the  governor's  flag  of  presentation 
to  a  Reformed  Church.  So  fared  the  first  conflict  of  an 
English  governor  with  a  Dutch  Church,  in  the  complete 
victory  of  the  latter.  As  to  Van  Rensselaer,  he  was  not 
worth  the  struggle,  and  after  a  year's  time  the  governor 
compelled  him  to  depart,  "for  scandalous  conduct." 

Another  ecclesiastical  mandate  of  Andros  met  with  a 
greater  success  in  1679,  when  he  authorized  and  directed  the 
Dutch  clergy  of  New  York  to  ordain  Tesschenmacker  to  the  Ordination 
ministry.1  In  respect  to  ecclesiastical  polity,  this  demand 
made  the  highest  flight  of  spiritual  supremacy  ever  attempted 
by  a  colonial  governor.  It  was  an  attempt  to  create  an 
ordaining  power,  which  in  a  colony  under  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land establishment  could  only  be  equalled  by  the  appointment 

1  Corwin,  p.  74. 


332  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  a  bishop,  a  peculiar  prerogative  of  the  crown.  For  in  the 
polity  of  the  Reformed  Church,  as  in  the  Anglican,  the 
power  of  ordination  was  not  resident  in  the  clergy  as  such. 
In  the  Anglican  Church  only  a  bishop  could  ordain,  while 
in  the  Reformed  Church  the  power  belonged  to  a  convened 
body  of  ministers  and  elders,  called  a  classis,  formally  organ- 
ized for  that  purpose  and  for  the  care  of  the  Churches. 

But  in  the  time  of  Andros  there  was  no  such  "  Reverend 
Body"  in  New  York.  The  care  of  the  Churches  in  New 
Netherland  had  been  committed  by  the  states  general  and  the 
West  India  company  to  the  classis  of  Amsterdam.  To  that 
body  belonged  ordination  for  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  in 
America ;  for  which  rite  any  man  of  those  Churches,  desiring 
ordination,  was  forced  to  go  in  person  to  Holland.  A  like 
hardship  was  experienced  by  the  American  candidates  for 
Episcopal  ordination,  who,  until  after  the  Revolution,  were 
compelled  to  voyage  to  England  for  the  imposition  of  a 
bishop's  hands. 

The  singularity,  then,  and  arrogance  of  Andros's  demand 
were  in  the  attempt  to  create  a  spiritual  body  for  the  dis- 
charge of  the  highest  office  in  the  power  of  the  Church !  It 
is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  the  governor  was  at  all  aware 
of  the  real  gravity  of  his  command.  He  probably  only 
looked  upon  it  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  which  he  as  gov- 
ernor had  every  right  to  direct.  In  reality,  he  could  not 
have  presumed  much  further,  unless  he  had  undertaken  to 
ordain  the  candidate  himself. 

A  still  more  singular  thing  about  the  incident  was  the 
complaisance  of  the  Dutch  clergy.  They,  unlike  Andros, 
perfectly  well  understood  the  nature  of  the  demand,  and  that 
it  was  a  preposterous  invasion  of  one  of  the  Church's  most 
sacred  rights.  They  knew  that  they  could  not  ordain  as 
clergy;  and  could  not  organize  themselves  into  a  classis, 
without  express  authorization  from  their  superior  at  Amster- 
dam; and  that  any  action,  which  they  as  a  pretended  classis 
might  take,  would  be  irregular  and  void.  At  the  same  time, 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  333 

they  complied  with  Andres's  demand,  organized  themselves 
into  a  classis,  and  ordained  Tesschenmacker !  It  is  worthy 
of  note  that,  on  report  of  this  action  to  the  classis  of  Amster- 
dam, that  body,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  ratified  the  ordina- 
tion, but  did  not  legalize  the  classical  organization  at  New 
York. 

So  Andros  carried  his  point,  and  won  the  greatest  (theo- 
retical) ecclesiastical  victory  ever  gained  by  a  colonial  gov- 
ernor, with  which  his  success  in  securing  rights  of  Episcopal 
worship  in  Boston  is  not  to  be  compared.  Doubtless,  the 
record  of  this  incident  emboldened  Governor  Nicholson, 
thirty  years  later,  to  demand  the  ordination  of  Van  Vleck  at 
the  hands  of  Dubois  and  Antonides,  Dutch  ministers  in 
his  time  at  New  York.  But  these  men  were  either  wiser  or 
less  pressed  by  circumstances  than  their  predecessors,  and 
flatly  refused  to  do  the  governor's  bidding.  The  governor 
was  sensible  enough  not  to  press  the  matter.1 

The  assembly  of  1683, 2  the  first  after  the  coming  of  Gov- 
ernor Dongan,  adopted  a  "  Charter  of  Liberties,"  in  which  it  charter  of 
was  ordained  that,  "  No  person  professing  faith  in  God  by  Liberties- 
Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  molested  or  called  in  question  for  any 
difference  of  opinion  in  matters  of  religion."     This  is  sub- 
stantially in   the   language   of    the   duke's    instructions   to 
Andros  in  1674.     The  "  Charter  "  goes  on  to  say  that  "  the 
Churches  already  in  New  York  do  appear  to  be  privileged 
Churches,"  their  privileges  confirmed  by  the  past  government 

1  Smith,  New  York,  I,  199. 

An  amusing  instance  of  governmental  interference  with  religious  matters 
is  contained  in  a  letter  from  Lieutenant  Governor  Brockholst  to  the  constables 
at  Huntington  in  1682.  (Colonial  History,  XIV,  765.)  He  writes  that  com- 
plaints have  come  to  him  against  Mr.  Jones  for  refusing  to  baptize  children  ; 
and  that  Jones  informs  him  that  he  is  willing  to  baptize  all  children  of 
Christian  parents,  but  that  many  inhabitants  of  Huntington  are  godless  and 
Sabbath-breakers.  Whereupon  the  governor  charges  the  constables  to  "see 
that  the  Lord's  Day  is  well  and  Solemnly  observed  by  all  ...  that  it  may 
not  longer  be  A  Doubt  or  Dispute  who  are  Christian  Parents." 

2  Corwin,  p.  78. 


334  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

and  by  the  later  surrender  confirmed  again,  "  Provided  also 
that  all  other  Christian  Churches,  that  shall  hereafter  come 
and  settle  in  the  province,  shall  have  the  same  privileges." 

There  can  be  no  exception  taken  to  such  an  ordinance.  It 
distinctly  declared  the  mind  of  the  colonists  as  opposed  to 
any  legal  preference  of  any  particular  Church.  Though  the 
great  majority  of  the  people  were  attached  to  the  Reformed 
Church,  they  desired  that  all  Churches  should  be  on  a  level 
before  the  law  —  a  thing  worthy  of  all  honor,  as  showing 
that  the  Dutchmen  of  New  York  had  not  lost  the  tolerant 
spirit  which  their  fathers  had  brought  from  Holland. 

The  broad  terms  of  this  charter  were  approved  by  the  duke 
of  York,  but  when  he  became  king  and  the  titular  head  of 
Church  of  the  Church  of  England  this  approval  was  recalled,  and  the 
England.  attempt  was  made  to  establish  that  Church  as  the  State- 
Church  in  New  York.  Thus,  James's  instructions  to  Gov- 
ernor Dongan  in  1686  said:1  "You  shall  take  care  that 
God  Almighty  bee  devoutly  and  duely  served  throughout 
your  Government,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  read  each 
Sunday  and  Holy  day,  and  the  Blessed  Sacrament  be  ad- 
ministered according  to  the  Rites  of  the  Church  of  England." 
Various  prescriptions  were  made  about  Church  buildings 
and  ministers,  and  each  one  of  the  latter  was  to  have  as- 
signed to  him  "  a  competent  Proportion  of  Land  for  a  Glebe 
and  exercise  of  his  Industry."  The  parishes  were  "  to  bee 
so  limited  and  setled  as  you  shall  find  most  convenient  for 
ye  accommodating  this  good  work."  The  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction over  the  province  was  lodged  in  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  while  the  governor  was  vested  with  the  powers 
of  presentation  and  immediate  discipline  and  removal  of  the 
clergy.  The  governor  was  forbidden  to  prefer  any  minister 
"  to  any  benefice  "  without  a  certificate  from  the  archbishop 
that  he  is  of  the  Church  of  England ;  and  he  was  empowered 
to  remove  any  "  scandalous  "  minister  and  to  fill  the  vacancy 
at  his  "  discretion." 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  372,  373. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  335 

These  provisions  in  preference  of  the  Church  of  England, 
forced  upon  James  by  his  accession  to  the  throne,  were  not 
designed  to  act  in  exclusion  of  other  Churches.  Nothing 
was  said  toward  modifying  the  liberty  granted  in  the  former 
instructions.  This  was  again  allowed,  and  the  door  was  in- 
tentionally left  open  to  the  followers  of  differing  forms  of 
religion,  "  provided  they  make  no  disturbance  of  the  public 
peace."  Through  this  open  door  various  religionists  entered 
the  colony  and  settled  without  hindrance.  Among  them 
were  a  number  of  Romanists.  Three  Jesuit  priests  are  said 
to  have  been  in  New  York  during  Dongan's  administration, 
one  of  whom  is  thought  to  have  been  teacher  of  the  Latin 
school  opened  by  the  governor.1 

Dongan's  "  Report  on  the  State  of  the  Province," 2  1687, 
in  reference  to  religious  matters,  said :  "  Here  bee  not  many  Religious 
of  the  Church  of  England  ;  few  Roman  Catholics ;  abundance  8tate* 
of  Quaker  preachers,  men  and  Women  especially ;  Singing 
Quakers ;  Ranting  Quakers ;  Sabbatarians ;  Anti-Sabbata- 
rians ;  some  Anabaptists ;  some  Independents ;  some  Jews ; 
in  short,  of  all  sorts  of  opinions  there  are  some,  and  the  most 
part  of  none  at  all.  The  most  prevailing  opinion  is  that  of 
the  Dutch  Calvinists.  ...  It  is  the  endeavor  of  all  persons 
here  to  bring  up  the  children  and  servants  in  the  opinion 
which  themselves  profess ;  but  this  I  observe,  that  they  take 
no  care  of  the  conversion  of  their  Slaves.  ...  As  for  the 
King's  natural  born  subjects  that  live  on  Long  Island,  and 
other  parts  of  the  Government,  I  find  it  a  hard  task  to  make 
them  pay  their  Ministers." 

There  are  no  records  of  serious  interference  with  ecclesias- 
tical affairs  on  the  part  of  Dongan.  Though  an  avowed  Dongan. 
Catholic,  he  showed  no  strong  desire  to  build  up  any  Church, 
but  devoted  himself  to  his  civil  duties,  in  which  he  proved 
to  be  one  of  the  very  best  of  the  governors  in  the  province. 
During  his  term  the  influx  of  Romanists  could  not  have  been 

1  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  73  ;  Smith,  New  York,  I,  90. 

2  Colonial  History,  III,  410 ;  Documentary  History,  I,  116. 


336 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Leisler. 


Romanists. 


William 
and  Mary. 


large,  but  those  who  did  come  were  the  recipients  of  his 
favor.  Some  of  the  public  officials  professed  attachment  to 
Rome,  and  many  of  "  the  people  trembled  for  the  Protestant 
cause." 1 

This  fear  found  expression  on  the  fall  of  James  II.  and  the 
usurpation  by  Leisler  of  the  government  in  New  York.2  On 
receipt  of  the  news  of  the  Revolution  in  England,  the  coun- 
cil at  once  resolved  to  "  suspend  all  Roman  Catholics  from 
Command  and  Places  of  Trust."  This  resolution  turned  out 
just  two  officers,  Major  Baxter  and  Ensign  Russell,  —  not  a 
very  formidable  number,  —  who  left  the  province.  Leisler 
ordered  the  arrest  of  all  "  reputed  Papists,"  and  forbade  the 
franchise  to  others  than  Protestant  freemen.  The  effect  of 
this,  however,  was  only  an  expression  of  opinion  and  desire, 
for  Leisler  and  his  government  soon  came  to  ignominious 
disaster. 

In  1689  Governor  Sloughter  came  to  New  York  with  in- 
structions from  William  and  Mary,  which  repeated  in  regard 
to  Church  matters  the  provisions  in  James's  orders  to  Dongan, 
except  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  colonial  Church  was  trans- 
ferred from  the  see  of  Canterbury  to  that  of  London.  They 
were  made  also  in  the  light  of  the  great  toleration  act  of 
1689,  which  was  intended  to  have  force  in  all  the  English 
dominions,  and  which  excluded  from  favor  both  Unitarians 
and  Romanists.3  The  like  instructions  were  given  to  Colonel 
Fletcher  in  1692,  when  he  succeeded  to  Sloughter,  with  the 
addition  that  he  was  authorized  "  to  Colate  any  Person  or 
Persons  to  any  Churches,  Chapells,  or  other  Ecclesiastical 
Benefices  ...  as  often  as  any  of  them  shall  happen  to  be 
void."  4  Like  instructions,  with  scarcely  a  variation,  were 
given  to  the  successive  governors  down  almost  to  the  Revolu- 
tion. James  set  the  model  for  his  followers  on  the  throne, 

i  Smith,  New  York,  I,  90. 

a  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  II,  21,  41,  244. 

8  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  688. 

*  Ibid.,  Ill,  821,  830. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  337 

none  of  whom  ever  detected  the   folly  of  supposing  the 
Church  of  England  to  be  established  in  New  York.1 

Governor  Sloughter's  administration  does  not  appear  to  sioughter. 
have  interested  itself  in  the  advancement  of  the  Church  of 
England,  or  in  religious  matters  at  all ;  unless  we  may  take 
as  an  indication  of  the  latter  the  expulsion  from  the  assembly 
of  1691  of  two  members  from  Queens,  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  Quakers.2  Though  the  royal  instructions  insisted 
on  the  recognition  of  the  English  Church  and  its  orders,  its 
establishment  in  the  colony  could  not  be  effected  without  the 
formal  action  of  the  colonial  legislature,  which  action  Siough- 
ter made  no  effort  to  procure.  The  only  official  representa- 
tion of  the  Church  was  in  requiring  from  all  office  holders 
the  test  oath  prescribed  by  the  parliament.  This  involved 
the  oath  of  allegiance  and  supremacy,  partaking  the  sacra- 
ment "  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England,"  and 
signing  a  declaration  against  the  Roman  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation.  The  application  of  this  oath  was  enough, 
without  any  movement  of  the  governor,  to  cause  the  exclu- 
sion of  Quakers  from  the  legislature  and  all  office. 

When  Fletcher  came  to  the  government  in  1692,  he  brought  Fletcher, 
with  him  either  emphatic  orders  from  his  superiors,  or  a 
determined  purpose  of  his  own,  to  procure  the  formal  estab- 
lishment of  the  Church  by  a  colonial  statute.  His  own  zeal, 
indeed,  was  sufficient  to  urge  him  to  the  effort.  His  religious 
bigotry  was  only  equalled  by  his  vain  love  of  power  and  by  a 
lust  for  money,  which  made  his  government  the  most  corrupt 
in  the  annals  of  the  province.3  The  story  of  his  struggles 
with  the  assembly  is  notable  as  illustrating  both  his  temper 
and  the  spirit  of  the  Dutchmen,  whom  he  attempted  to  coerce. 
It  is  also  a  peculiar  instance  of  that  ecclesiastical  arrogance 
which  has  often  made  no  scruple  about  grasping  more  "  than 
the  law  allows." 

1  Colonial  History,  IV,  269,  287 ;  V,  95,  391,  etc. 

2  Smith,  New  York,  I,  113. 

8  Colonial  History,  IV,  822, 826 ;  Cobb,  Story  of  the  Palatines,  pp.  115,  218. 


338 


KISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Establish- 
ment. 


Act  of  1693. 


To  the  first  legislature  of  his  term  (1692)  Fletcher  issued 
a  demand  that  they  take  the  requisite  action  to  "  settle  the 
ministry,"  using  that  term  to  involve  the  establishment  of 
the  Church  of  England.1  The  assembly,  however,  did  noth- 
ing in  the  matter,  greatly  to  the  wrath  of  the  governor,  who 
berated  them  roundly,  and  declared  that  "the  same  law, 
which  established  your  privileges,  provided  for  the  religion 
of  the  Church  of  England."  To  the  next  assembly  Fletcher 
presented  the  same  demand,  saying,  "  I  recommended  to  the 
former  assembly  the  settling  of  an  able  ministry,  that  the 
worship  of  God  may  be  observed  among  us,  for  I  find  that 
first  and  great  duty  very  much  neglected."  This  assembly 
of  1693,  more  complaisant  than  the  last,  relaxed  something  of 
its  opposition.  Unwilling,  however,  to  yield  all  that  the  gov- 
ernor wanted,  they  appointed  a  committee  of  eight  to  devise 
a  scheme,  which  might  possibly  satisfy  Fletcher  and  yet  avoid 
the  establishment  demanded.  The  result  of  the  committee's 
labor  was  a  bill  for  a  religious  establishment  of  an  entirely 
nondescript  character,  the  like  of  which  is  not  to  be  found 
elsewhere.  The  bill  was  reported  to  the  assembly  and  became 
law  on  the  23d  of  September,  1693.2 

The  significant  portions  of  the  Act  are  as  follows:  "In 
Each  of  the  respective  Cities  and  Counties  hereafter  men- 
tioned there  shall  be  called,  inducted,  and  established  a  good, 
sufficient,  Protestant  Minister."  ...  In  the  City  of  New 
York  one :  in  the  County  of  Richmond  one ;  in  the  County 
of  Westchester  two,  one  to  have  care  of  West  Chester,  East 
Chester,  Yonkers,  and  the  Manor  of  Pelham,  and  one  to  have 
the  care  of  Rye,  Mamaroneck,  and  Bedford ;  and  in  Queens 
County  two,  one  for  Jamaica  and  "  adjacent  towns  and  farms," 
and  the  other  for  "  Hamstead  "  and  adjacent  towns.  The  law 
also  ordained  that  in  the  Churches  named  there  should  be 

1  Corwin,  Beformed  Church,  pp.  96-106 ;  Smith,  New  York,  I,  128- 
134. 

a  Colonial  Laws  of  New  York.  Colonial  History,  IV,  57 ;  Legislative 
Journal,  pp.  47,  48. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  339 

"Wardens  and  a  Vestry,"  to  be  chosen  by  the  freeholders 
summoned  by  the  justices :  and  that  the  ministers  should  be 
supported  by  public  tax.     This  act  is  remarkable  for  both  its 
requirements  and  its  omissions.     There  is  not  a  word  in  the 
act  referring  to  the  Church  of  England,  or  to  the  book  of  com-  Not  Angii- 
mon  prayer;  there  is  no  requirement  of  services  "according  can> 
to  the  rites  "  of  the  English  Church,  nor  any  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  supremacy  of  the  crown,  nor  any  allowance  of 
patronage  to  the  governor.    At  the  same  time,  the  act  restricts  Restricted, 
its  operation  to  the  four  counties  named,  and  does  not  apply 
to  Kingston,  Albany,  or  any  part  of  the  province  outside  of 
those  counties.    Nor  in  those  counties  does  it  make  the  estab- 
lishment universal.     What  in  legal  construction  it  did,  was 
to  establish,  not  a  Church  at  all,  but  six  Protestant  Ministers 
in  places  named,  and  these  ministers  of  no  specified  denomi- 
nation, save  that  they  must  be  Protestant.     In  other  towns 
of  these  counties  and  in  the  case  of  other  ministers  needed  in 
these  towns,  the  act  did  not  apply.     Thus,  while  the  act  did 
create  a  Church   establishment  in  the  places   noted,  it  yet 
established   neither  any  Church  for  the  province  at  large, 
nor  any  particular  Church  for  the  localities  specified.     The 
Reformed   Church   had  as  good  a  legal  right  to  claim   the 
establishment  as  had   the   Church  of  England.      This  was 
practically  acknowledged  at  the  time  by  Colonel  Lewis  Mor- 
ris, himself  a  strong  Church  of  England  man,  in  a  letter 
written  in  1711.1    The  act,  he  wrote,  "  is  very  loosely  worded. 
The  Dissenters  claim  the  benefit  of  it  as  well  as  we  :  and  the 
Act  without   much  wresting  will   admit  a  construction  in 
their  favor  as  well  as  ours."     In  fact,  it  belonged  to  neither. 
The  only  named  Church  that  was  ever  "  established  "  on  the 
soil  of  New  York  was  the  Reformed  Church,  which  fell  with 
the   Dutch  power.     The    arrogant   assumption   of   English 
cabinets   and   governors   that  the    Church  of  England  was 
established  in  New  York,  and  the  common  supposition,  even 
to  this  day,  that  the  Episcopal  Church  was  ever  a  State- 
1  Colonial  History,  V,  320. 


340 


KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Fletcher's 
anger. 


Legislative 
construc- 
tion. 


Church  in  the  province,  are  alike  unwarranted  by  the 
facts.1 

At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  Governor  Fletcher 
was  well  aware  of  its  deficiencies.  He  returned  it  to  the 
assembly  with  instructions  to  amend,  by  inserting  a  clause 
investing  the  governor  with  the  right  of  induction.  He  sug- 
gested that  the  act  should  require  that  ministers  be  "presented 
to  the  governor  to  be  approved  and  collated."  But  the 
assembly  thought  that  they  had  yielded  enough  and  refused 
the  amendment;  whereupon  the  governor  prorogued  them, 
saying,  "  If  you  seem  to  understand  that  none  can  serve  with- 
out your  collation  or  establishment,  you  are  far  mistaken ; 
for  I  have  the  power  of  collating  or  suspending  any  minister 
in  my  government  by  their  majesties'  letters  patent:  and 
whilst  I  stay  in  the  government,  I  will  take  care  that  neither 
heresy,  sedition,  schism,  nor  rebellion  be  preached  among 
you."  But  neither  anger  nor  argument  could  bend  the  legis- 
lature to  the  governor's  will,  and  he  was  forced  to  content 
himself  with  the  act  as  it  stood. 

Almost  immediately  there  arose  two  occasions  which  gave 
the  assembly  opportunity  to  construe  their  own  act.  In 
1694  the  Rev.  John  Miller,  chaplain  to  the  English  soldiers, 
claimed  the  benefit  of  support  under  the  act,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England  stationed 
in  New  York.  Fletcher  at  once  allowed  the  claim,  but  the 
legislature  would  not  permit.  Again,  in  the  following  year, 
it  was  questioned  whether  any  of  the  Churches  named  were 
restricted  in  their  choice  of  ministers  to  clergymen  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Five  wardens  and  vestrymen  in  the 
city  of  New  York  petitioned  the  legislature  on  the  subject, 
and  the  house  resolved :  "  That,  the  vestrymen  and  Church 
wardens  have  power  to  call  a  dissenting  protestant  minister, 
and  that  he  is  to  be  paid  and  maintained  as  the  act  directs." 
This  was  not  pleasing  to  Fletcher,  who  argued  the  absurdity 
of  such  opinion  on  the  ground  that  "  there  is  no  Protestant 
1  Hoffman,  Ecclesiastical  Law  in  the  State  of  New  York,  p.  7. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  341 

Church  admits  of  such  officers  as  Church-wardens  and  Vestry- 
men but  the  Church  of  England."  He  could  not  comprehend 
that  the  legislature  had  created  an  establishment  of  their 
own,  and  had  borrowed  these  terms  to  hoodwink  him;  or 
that  considerably  more  than  the  titles  of  local  Church  officers 
were  needed  to  constitute  a  branch  of  the  Church  of  England. 
It  was  only  by  indirection,  and  also  by  many  false  statements, 
that  the  impression  took  form  that  the  act  of  1693  established 
the  Church  of  England.  Fletcher  himself  knew  to  the  con- 
trary, but  he  always  afterward  talked  and  acted  as  though 
he  had  gotten  the  establishment  he  desired.  The  course  of 
government  likewise,  on  both  sides  of  the  sea,  always  as- 
sumed that  the  Anglican  Church  had  been  established.  The 
ministers  and  members  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  New  York 
acted  on  the  same  assumption  —  a  most  unwarranted  perver- 
sion of  the  facts  in  the  case ;  for  the  reason  that  it  is  perfectly 
clear,  from  the  succession  of  events,  that  the  establishing  of 
the  Church  of  England  was  precisely  that  thing  which  the 
legislature  was  determined  not  to  do.  Owing  to  this  perver- 
sion, the  assembly  made  many  efforts  to  repeal  the  act,  but 
were  opposed  by  the  governor  and  council,  so  that  the  law 
remained  in  force  until  the  Revolution.1 

As  though  prompted  by  the  passage  of  the  "  Ministry  Act " 
and  the  construction  which  the  governor  seemed  determined 
to  put  upon  it,  the  consistory  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
New  York  applied  for  and  obtained  in  1696  a  charter,  con-  Collegiate 
firming  the  privileges  stipulated  in  the  articles  of  surrender 
in  1664.  Beyond  doubt,  it  was  a  recollection  of  those  stipu- 
lations, together  with  a  desire  to  propitiate  a  public  indig- 
nant at  his  effort  to  force  the  English  Church  upon  the  col- 
ony, that  moved  the  governor  to  grant  the  charter.2 

1  Corwin,  p.  106  ;  Colonial  History,  IV,  427. 

2  Lord  Bellomont,  who  succeeded  Fletcher  in  1697,  writing  to  the  board 
of  trade,  described  this  charter  as,  "extraordinary,  for  it  is  setting  up  a 
jurisdiction  to  fly  in  the  face  of  government."     He  also  said  that  Fletcher 
had  accepted  "  a  bribe  for  it,"  and  that  himself  had  seen  in  the  book  of  the 


342 


RISE   OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Presby- 
terian. 


Lutheran. 


Other  Dutch  Churches  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  re- 
ceived charters  in  the  following  year,  but  such  incorporation 
was  consistently  refused  to  all  other  Churches  except  the 
Episcopal.  Thus  —  to  anticipate  in  our  narrative  —  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  New  York  applied  for  a  charter  in 
171 9.1  The  application  to  the  governor  was  opposed  by 
Trinity  Church,  and  was  referred  to  the  board  of  trade  to 
meet  a  denial.  In  1763  the  Lutheran  Church  in  New  York 
made  a  similar  application,  which  was  approved  by  the  coun- 
cil, but  was  referred  by  the  governor  to  the  home  govern- 
ment, with  "  several  from  Dissenting  Congregations  for  like 
privileges."  What  these  other  Churches  were  does  not  ap- 
pear, but  they  were  all  denied,  "  as  his  Majesty  saw  no  reason 
which  rendered  it  necessary."2  In  1766  the  Presbyterian 
Church  renewed  its  request  for  a  charter  by  way  of  petition 
direct  to  the  king.  The  action  in  response  to  this  petition 
took  a  curious  course.3  It  was  referred  by  the  king  to  the 
board  of  trade,  and  the  board  sent  it  back  to  America,  inquir- 
ing if  there  were  any  objections  to  the  petition,  "  which  in 
the  general  and  abstracted  view  of  it  appears  to  us  to  be  no 
ways  Improper  or  unreasonable."  Thus  the  request  came 
up  in  the  provincial  council,  which  body,  less  anti-Anglican 
than  formerly,  resolved,  that  a  judicial  decision  must  first  be 
obtained  as  to  whether  "  the  old  English  statutes  of  Uniform- 
ity extend  to  America " ,  and  stated,  "  Except  the  charters 
granted  to  the  Church  of  England,  all  the  instances  of  such 
Incorporations  within  this  province  (four  only  in  number) 
are  confined  to  the  Dutch,  whose  claims  to  this  Distinction 
are  grounded  on  one  of  the  Articles  of  Capitulation."  In 
the  next  year  the  king  in  council  took  order  dismissing  the 
petition,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  "  against  the  king's  coro- 

Church  treasurer,  the  entry  of  the  purchase  of  "a  considerable  service  of 
plate"  to  be  presented  to  the  governor  (Colonial  History,  IV,  463),  which 
entry  he  copied  for  proof  to  the  board. 

i  Documentary  History,  III,  279.  2  Ibid.,  Ill,  295,  299. 

8  Ibid.,  Ill,  302-307  ;  Colonial  History,  VIII,  846,  943. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  343 

nation  oath  to  preserve  the  Church  of  England,"  and  that  it 
was  "not  expedient  upon  Principles  of  General  Polity  to 
comply  with  the  Prayer  of  this  Petition,  or  to  give  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  New  York  any  other  Privileges  or  Im- 
munities than  it  is  entitled  to  by  the  Laws  of  Toleration." 
The  Presbyterians  undiscouraged  renewed  their  request  in 
1775,  only  to  be  again  refused,  though  less  brusquely.1 

The  whole  story  of  these  applications  is  but  one  among 
many  illustrations  of  the  perverse  tenacity  which  clung  to 
the  false  assumption  of  an  Anglican  establishment  in  New 
York.  This  assumption  is  most  strikingly  exhibited  in  the 
charter  of  Trinity  Church.  That  Church,  as  though  startled  Charter  of 
by  the  incorporation  of  the  Dutch  Collegiate  Church  in  1696,  Trinity- 
and  as  though  having  some  suspicions  of  its  boasted  estab- 
lishment, in  the  next  year  made  application  for  a  charter,  in 
which  application,  as  also  in  the  charter  itself,  the  assertion 
is  many  times  repeated  that  the  act  of  1693  had  established 
the  Church  of  England.2  Not  for  lack  of  assertion  was  the 
misstatement  to  fail  of  credence. 

The  administration  of  Bellomont  did  not  concern  itself 
very  greatly  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  This  was  probably 
through  lack  of  opportunity,  if  we  may  judge  from  one 
recorded  instance  of  zeal  for  the  Church  of  England  — his 
veto  of  a  bill  for  the  settlement  of  a  minister,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  dissenter.3  His  lordship's  successor,  Lord 
Cornbury,  more  than  made  up  for  the  lack,  filling  his  term  Cornbury. 
with  much  activity  in  the  cause  of  the  Church,  and  that  in 
ways  of  most  offensive  annoyance  and  oppression.  "Edu- 
cated at  Geneva,  he  yet  loved  episcopacy  as  a  religion  of  the 
State  subordinate  to  the  executive  power."4  A  cousin  of 
Queen  Anne,  to  whom  he  bore  a  strong  resemblance  of  fea- 

1  Colonial  History,  VIII,  572. 

2  Documentary  History,  III.  410  ;   Colonial  History,  IV,  1114 ;  Corwin, 
p.  116. 

8  Colonial  History,  IV,  536. 

*  Bancroft,  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  60,  62. 


344  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ture,  he  prided  himself  on  the  relationship  and  deemed 
that  it  conferred  upon  him  more  imperial  powers  than  other 
governors  possessed,  especially  with  regard  to  Church  affairs. 
His  zeal  carried  him  to  very  extreme  actions,  and,  as  though 
dissatisfied  with  the  already  defined  powers  of  his  office,  led 
him  to  forge  instructions  from  England  for  the  purpose  of 
increasing  his  ecclesiastical  prerogatives.  (Bancroft.) 

He  arrived  at  New  York  in  1701  and  at  once  proceeded  to 
the  exercise  of  episcopal  powers,  in  a  way  which  none  of  his 
predecessors  had  attempted.  They  had  respected  that  limita- 
tion of  the  ministry  act  which  had  confined  its  nondescript 
Church  to  the  four  counties  of  New  York,  Westchester, 
Queens,  and  Richmond.  But  Cornbury  chose  to  consider 
Attempts  to  that  it  covered  the  province.  Thus,  about  the  time  of  his 
Kingston*  arrival  the  Church  (Reformed)  of  Kingston  became  vacant, 
and  the  governor  undertook  to  induct  there  a  Mr.  Haburne, 
a  Church  of  England  minister,  whom  he  sent  to  Kingston 
with  order  that  the  people  receive  him  as  their  minister  and 
provide  him  with  a  good  house.1  To  these  orders  the  Kingston 
Church  paid  small  attention. 

The  next  year,  Cornbury,  to  his  great  indignation,  learned 
that  a  certain  Paul  van  Vleck  had  been  preaching  about  the 
country,  "notwithstanding  that  he  had  been  forbid  by  his 
Excellency " ;    and  that  he  had  been  called  by  the  Church 
Kinder-         (Reformed)  of  Kinderhook,  "  without  any  License  "  to  the 
hook.  Church  permitting  the  call.     The  governor  at  once  ordered 

the  "  High  Sheriff  "  of  Albany  to  arrest  Van  Vleck,  and  bring 
him  to  New  York.  Four  members  of  the  Kinderhook  Church 
having  presumed  to  interfere  with  a  certificate  in  favor  of  the 
candidate,  they  were  included  in  the  order  for  arrest.  The 
party  appeared  before  the  governor  in  March,  1703,  and,  not 
having  the  stuff  that  martyrs  are  made  of,  "  acknowledging 
their  error  &  submitting  themselves  thereon,  were  discharged 
with  a  caution  to  be  more  careful  in  future."  2 

About  the  same  time  Lord  Cornbury  appeared  as  a  defender 
1  Documentary  History,  III,  584.  2  /^. ,  m,  539. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  345 

of  the  faith  against  heresy.  John  Tallman,  one  of  the  justices  Heresy, 
of  Queens  county  was  reported  to  have  said  that,  "the  Scrip- 
tures were  not  the  rule,  they  being  wrote  by  sinful  men  of 
like  passions  as  we  are ;  and  that  the  holy  Scriptures  was  a 
rule,  but  not  the  rule  we  should  go  by."  Affidavits  of  these 
heretical  words  were  laid  before  the  governor's  council  and 
it  was  ordered  that  Tallman  be  removed  from  office  and  be 
prosecuted  by  the  attorney-general.1 

It  were  tedious  to  here  recount  all  the  instances  of  Corn- 
bury's  impudent  interference  with  Church  affairs  and  the 
liberty  of  religion.  His  administration  was  rendered  famous 
by  three  great  cases.  These  were  the  celebrated  Mackemie 
case,  which  came  to  issue  and  quick  decision  in  1707 ;  the 
Jamaica  Church  case,  and  that  of  Freeman  and  Antonides, 
both  of  which  began  in  1702  and  left  a  legacy  of  much  annoy- 
ance to  Cornbury's  successors.  The  main  features  of  each 
must  be  briefly  noted. 

The  case  of  the  Jamaica  Church  was  one   of  barefaced  Jamaica 
spoliation.      The  town  had  been  settled  in  1656,  mainly  by  Church- 
English   people  with  Presbyterian  preferences.      They  had 
been  made  welcome  by  the  Dutch,  and  by  the  English  con- 
querors were   not  disturbed   until  after  the  passage  of  the 
ministry  act.2    They  had  set  apart  land  for  a  glebe  and  made 
a  parsonage  for  a  minister,  and  in  1699  had  built  a  fine  stone 
Church,  the  expense  of   which  was   raised   by  public  tax. 
Meanwhile  there  had  come  to  the  town  a  number  of  people 
of  the  Church  of  England,  whose  cupidity  was  excited  by  the 
fine   Church  property  of   their   Presbyterian   neighbors,  an 
opportunity  of  securing  which  for  themselves  seemed  to  be 
offered  by  the  ministry  act. 

On  the  passage  of  that  act  the  organization  of  the  Jamaica 
Church  was  so  far  changed  as  that  its  officers  (all  dissenters) 
took  the  names  of  Wardens  and  Vestrymen.  As  such  they 
called  and  settled  Mr.  Hubbard,3  who  at  the  time  of  the  open- 

1  Documentary  History,  III,  124.  a  Ibid.,  Ill,  160. 

2  Ibid.,  Ill,  135;  Smith,  New  York,  I,  170,  171, 


346  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ing  of  the  trouble  was  the  pastor  of  the  Church  and  in  quiet 
possession  of  the  parsonage  and  glebe.  In  pursuance  of  the 
Episcopal  desires  a  Mr.  Bartow,  a  missionary  of  the  "  Society 
for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,"  came  to 
Jamaica  in  1702  or  1703,  and  concerted  measures  by  which 
the  Episcopal  minority  might  obtain  possession  of  the  Church 
property.  1On  a  Sunday,  after  Hubbard  had  preached  in 
the  morning,  Bartow  and  his  followers  slipped  into  the 
Church,  held  service,  and  claimed  the  building  for  the  use  of 
the  Church  of  England.  This  was  the  occasion  of  what  is 
Riot."  noted  in  the  records  as  the  Jamaica  Riot;  for  the  majority  of 
the  town  did  not  choose  to  submit  to  the  robbery  and  expelled 
the  intruders  by  force. 

This  reclamation  of  their  own  was  regarded  by  Cornbury 
as  unlawful  violence,  and  he  interfered  with  his  authority  to 
confirm  the  property  in  the  hands  of  the  Episcopalians.  He 
forbade  Hubbard  to  preach  in  the  Church  again,  "for  in 
regard  it  was  built  by  a  public  tax,  it  did  appertain  to  the 
Established  Church."  This  language  of  Cornbury  is  a  curi- 
ous specimen  of  his  perversity  of  opinion  —  for  as  matter  of 
fact,  under  the  ministry  act,  the  Church  with  Hubbard  as  its 
pastor  was  already  part  of  the  provincial  establishment.  Of 
course,  Cornbury's  false  premise  was,  that  the  establishment 
was  Anglican,  coupled  with  another  equally  false,  that  any 
property  for  religious  purposes,  paid  for  at  any  time  by  tax, 
must  belong  to  the  Church  of  England.  This  latter  claim 
finds  place  in  a  memorial  from  the  New  York  Episcopal  clergy 
to  the  bishop  of  London  in  1711.  They  therein  allege  the 
public  tax  as  a  ground  for  seizure  of  the  Jamaica  Church, 
while  they  admit  that  the  great  majority  of  the  inhabitants, 
who  paid  the  tax,  and  all  the  vestrymen  were  "  dissenters  " 
and  opposed  to  the  perversion  of  the  property.2 

The  governor's  measures  were  prompt  and  sharp,  at  once 
that  he  heard  that  the  "  dissenters "  had  reobtained  their 

1  Documentary  History,  III,  131. 

2  Ibid.,  Ill,  143;  Hoffman,  Ecclesiastical  Law  in  State  of  New  York,  p.  9. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  347 

building.  "  A  representation,"  wrote  Colonel  Morris,  "  was 
made  to  my  Lord  Cornbury  that  the  Jamaica  Church  and 
house,  being  built  by  publick  Act,  could  belong  to  none  but 
the  Church  of  England ;  my  Lord  gives  his  Warrant  to  dis- 
possess the  Dissenters,  which  immediately  by  Force  was  done 
without  any  Procedure  at  Law." 1  He  also  ordered  Mr.  Hub- 
bard  to  vacate  the  parsonage,  and,  on  his  declining  to  move 
out,  the  sheriff  was  ordered  to  eject  him.  At  the  same  time 
he  ordered  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  to  secure  the  glebe 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Episcopal  minister,  and  the  justices  to 
levy  a  tax  for  his  support.  Cornbury  completed  his  work  by 
inducting  a  Mr.  Urquhart  into  the  violently  vacated  charge.2 
Wett  might  Mr.  Urquhart  write  to  the  Society  for  the  Propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel  that  the  governor  was  "  a  true  nursing 
father  to  our  infancy  here."  3 

This  opinion  was  echoed  by  all  the  Church  of  England 
clergy  in  the  province,  who  in  their  convention  of  1704,  mak- 
ing report  to  the  bishop  of  London,  remark  of  Jamaica  affairs, 
"  There  is  a  Church  of  Stone,  built  by  a  tax  levied  on  the 
inhabitants  by  act  of  Assembly ;  and  a  house  and  glebe  for- 
merly in  the  possession  of  the  Independent  minister,  but  now 
in  the  possession  of  the  present  Incumbent  by  Lord  Corn- 
bury 's  favor."  4  The  same  report  notes  with  satisfaction  that 
a  dissenting  Church  at  New  Town,  the  minister  of  which  had 
gone  away,  had  been  given  by  the  governor  to  the  Episco- 
palians ! 

Urquhart  remained  in  possession  of  the  parsonage  and  use 
of  the  Church  for  six  years,  though  not  without  much  trouble 
and  popular  discontent.  At  the  end  of  that  period  he  died, 
leaving  in  the  possession  of  the  house  his  widow  and  daugh- 
ter, the  latter  of  whom  married  McNeish,  a  "dissenting" 
minister,  who  at  once  took  residence  in  the  parsonage  and 
was  called  to  the  pastorate  of  the  Church  by  the  wardens  and 
vestrymen,  not  one  of  whom  was  an  Episcopalian.5  Thus 

1  Colonial  History,  V,  320.  2  Documentary  History,  III,  128. 

»  Ibid.,  Ill,  130,       *  Ibid.,  p.  75.       &  Im^  ni,  144-160. 


348  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  property  came  again  into  Presbyterian  possession,  and 
there  remained. 

Their  tenure,  however,  was  not  without  opposition  from 
the  Church  of  England  party.  In  1710  Governor  Hunter 
gave  the  living  to  Rev.  Mr.  Poyer,  one  of  the  missionaries  of 
the  society,  but  the  new  rector  was  unable  to  obtain  either 
Church  or  house,  or  yet  his  salary.  The  governor  wrote  to 
Chief  Justice  Mompesson  to  put  Mr.  Poyer  into  possession 
by  an  order  from  the  court,  but  the  judge  replied  that  pos- 
session could  not  be  given  "  otherwise  than  by  due  process  of 
law,  without  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor."  Hunter  then 
urged  Poyer  to  carry  the  case  into  court,1  offering  his  own 
purse  to  meet  the  costs.  But  this  the  minister  and  his  asso- 
ciates were  unwilling  to  do,  alleging  as  their  reason  that 
"most  of  the  judges  were  dissenters."  To  counterbalance 
such  weight  of  dissent  on  the  bench,  a  notable  scheme  was 
devised,  which  took  form  in  a  memorial  to  the  queen  from 
the  society  in  London,2  praying  for  an  order  in  council,  al- 
lowing appeals  by  the  clergy  from  colonial  courts,  on  account 
of  their  bias  toward  dissent,  to  the  governor  and  council  and 
thence  to  the  queen  and  privy  council.  This  petition  was 
granted,  February  6,  171f.  On  this  the  missionary  was 
directed  by  the  society  to  go  into  court.  The  issue  after 
many  delays  was  a  defeat,  for  the  court  confirmed  the  prop- 
erty in  Presbyterian  hands.  This  final  decision  was  recorded 
in  1731,  and  Governor  Cosby  intimates  that  it  was  procured 
by  bribery  of  Chief  Justice  Morris,3  an  altogether  gratuitous 
slander.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Episcopal  party  made 
use  of  appeal  to  England,  and  they  finally  reconciled  them- 
selves to  the  necessity  of  building  a  Church  of  their  own  at 
Jamaica.  So  ended  Lord  Cornbury's  famous  attempt  to  per- 
vert a  Presbyterian  Church  by  violence  into  the  possession  of 
the  Church  of  England,  after  a  bitter  struggle  of  thirty  years. 

1  Colonial  History,  V,  310. 

2  Documentary  History,  III,  163  ;  Colonial  History,  V,  345,  352. 
8  New  Jersey  Archives,  V,  330. 


man. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  349 

The  second  question,  on  which  he  put  his  ecclesiastical 
power  to  proof,  was  that  of  patronage.  The  case  is  chiefly  Patronage, 
notable  for  the  bold  insistence  by  one  of  the  parties  that  the 
governor  had  no  power  of  induction  among  the  Dutch 
Churches.  It  began  in  1702  and  with  frequent  orders,  peti- 
tions, and  counter  petitions,  filling  many  pages  of  the  public 
documents,  lasted  for  twelve  years. 

In  the  year  noted  some  of  the  elders  in  the  Dutch  Churches 
of  Brooklyn,  Flatbush,  Flatlands,  and  New  Utrecht,  in  which 
Churches,  as  a  joint  pastorate,  Domine  Antonides  was  already  Antonides 
laboring,  petitioned  Lord  Cornbury  for  permission  to  call  the  and  Free~ 
Rev.  Bernardus  Freeman  of  Schenectady.1     This  petition  at  " 
once  aroused  great  opposition  among  the  other  elders  and  the 
congregations,  on  the  ground,  as  was  reported  to  Cornbury, 
that  he  "  had  nothing  to  doo  with  it,  and  it  was  their  privilege 
to  send  for  what  Minister  they  please,  without  your  Excel- 
lency's leave."     A  town  meeting  was  held  and  the  three  peti- 
tioning elders  were  put  out  of  the  consistory  for  applying  to 
the  governor.     Cornbury  then  obtained  an  order  of  council 
for  the  petitioners  to  appear,  and  also  for  the  town  clerk  with 
the  record  of  the  above  action. 

In  the  hearing  the  governor  seems  to  have  learned  some- 
thing to  the  prejudice  of  Freeman,  for  he  issued  an  order  for- 
bidding a  call  to  him,  because  he  "  has  misbehaved  himself 
by  promoting  and  encouraging  the  unhappy  divisions."  He 
declared  the  call  of  Freeman  "  not  consistent  with  her  Maj- 
esty's service  " ;  for  which  reasons  "  the  said  petitioners  are 
hereby  required  not  to  call  him ;  but  they  are  left  at  liberty 
to  send  for  such  Minister  as  they  shall  think  fitt  from  Holland  or 
any  other  place,  as  hath  been  customary."  This  order  antici- 
pated a  petition  from  the  Schenectady  Church,  praying  the 
governor  not  to  allow  Freeman  to  be  called  away. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition  of  the  governor  and 
the  desires  of  the   Schenectady  Church,  Freeman   came  to 
New  York  with  a  view  to  labor  in  the  Churches  named,  and 
1  Documentary  History,  III,  89-111. 


350  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

by  some  undisclosed  means  succeeded  in  disarming  Corn- 
bury's prejudice  and  in  securing  from  him  a  license  to  preach 
in  the  said  Churches,  "  for  &  During  So  Long  Time  as  to  me 
shall  Seem  meet,  and  all  P'sons  are  hereby  Required  to  Take 
Notice  hereof  accordingly." 

With  this  license  Freeman  began  preaching  at  New 
Utrecht  and  presently  made  occasion  for  his  elders  to  petition 
the  governor  that  he  would  compel  Antonides  to  surrender  the 
property  and  books  of  the  Churches,  "  whereof  Mr.  Freeman 
is  Minister  by  License  from  your  Excellency."  In  response 
to  this  prayer  Cornbury  issued  an  order  to  Antonides  for  the 
"  delivery  of  House,  Land,  Stock,  and  Books.  .  .  .  Whereas 
I  have  licensed,  authorized,  and  appointed  Mr.  Bernardus 
Freeman." 

Out  of  such  a  situation  grew  a  long-drawn  quarrel  between 
the  party  of  Freeman  and  the  party  of  Antonides.  The 
former  distinguished  themselves  by  the  most  obsequious  sub- 
mission to  the  governor's  right  of  induction  and  ecclesiastical 
control,  and  went  so  far  as  to  say  in  one  of  their  petitions, 
"  Your  Excellency's  petitioners  are  humbly  of  opinion  that 
all  Ecclesiastical  affairs  And  the  Determination  of  all 
things  relating  thereto  in  this  Province  lies  solely  before 
your  Lordpp."  This  they  declared  to  Cornbury,  and  after 
Cornbury's  departure  from  New  York  they  solicited  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Ingoldsby,  "  that  your  Honour  will  be 
pleased,  as  has  been  usual,  to  order  that  no  Dutch  Minister 
shall  preach  or  exercise  his  Ministerial  ffunctions  in  this 
County,  besides  Mr.  Freeman,  until  further  orders  from 
Yor  Honr." 

The  opposing  attitude  of  Antonides  and  his  party  was  that 
of  stout  denial  of  any  ecclesiastical  power  of  the  governor 
over  the  Dutch  Church  and  its  ministry,  declaring  that 
Antonides  held  his  position  by  the  authority  of  the  classis 
of  Amsterdam,  "  according  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  the 
Dutch  Church,"  and  "that  no  such  lycense  or  the  other 
orders  (Cornbury's)  were,  nor  yet  are,  of  any  force  or  validity 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  351 

in  the  Dutch  Churches  of  this  Province,  but  Tended  to  the 
ruin  of  the  liberty  of  the  said  Churches  in  this  Country."  In 
the  exercise  of  such  liberty,  and  such  contempt  for  govern- 
mental interference,  Antonides  boldly  disregarded  an  order 
not  to  ordain  elders  in  the  Churches,  informing  the  governor 
that  "  he  can  not  comply  with  the  order,  unless  he  breaks 
through  the  Rules  and  Discipline  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Protestant  Church." 

Had  Cornbury  remained  in  the  government  such  language 
might  have  brought  the  bold  minister  into  bonds,  but  his 
successors  were  of  different  mind.  The  term  of  Lovelace 
was  too  short  for  much  service,  giving  place  after  a  few 
months  to  Robert  Hunter,  who,  while  a  sincere  Church  of 
England  man,  was  liberal  of  mind  and  of  placable  disposition. 
Instead  of  taking  up  his  predecessor's  quarrel,  or  insisting  on 
any  superior  ecclesiastical  authority,  he  attempted  to  exert 
a  moral  influence,  rather  than  official  power,  in  establishing 
peace  between  the  contending  factions.  This  he  succeeded  in 
effecting  by  persuading  all  the  Churches  involved  to  call  both 
Antonides  and  Freeman  to  a  collegiate  pastorate,1  in  1714. 

The  most  celebrated  action  of  Cornbury  against  the  liberty 
of  worship  was  his  prosecution  of  Francis  Mackemie,  the  Mackemie. 
Presbyterian  minister  whose  settlement  and  service  in  Vir- 
ginia have  already  been  noted  in  the  chapter  on  that  colony. 
In  January,  1707,  he  with  another  minister,  John  Hampton, 
appeared  in  New  York  and  did  his  great  work  therein  in  the 
cause  of  religious  liberty.2  On  arrival  in  New  York  Mackemie 

1  Strong,  History  of  Flatbush. 

2  Smith,  New  York,  I,  186  j  Massachusetts  Historical   Collections,  VI, 
1 ;  12 ;  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  IV.    Pamphlet  entitled :  — 

"MACKEMIE'S  TRIAL 

"A  narrative  of  a  New  and  Unusual  American  imprisonment  of  two  Pres- 
byterian ministers,  one  of  them  for  preaching  one  SERMON  at  the  City  of  New 
York,  1707. 

"  A  specimen  of  the  Cloggs  and  Fetters  with  which  the  Liberties  of  Dis- 
senters are  intangled  at  New  York  and  Jersey  Governments,  beyond  any 
places  in  her  Majesty's  Dominions." 


352  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

either  sought  and  obtained  permission,  or  was  invited  by  the 
Dutch  Minister,  to  preach  in  the  Reformed  Church.  But 
Cornbury  forbade  the  service,  and  the  preacher,  not  insisting 
on  the  use  of  the  Church,  held  service  and  preached  in  the 
house  of  William  Jackson,  "with  open  doors."  Hampton 
preached  also  on  the  same  Sunday,  January  20th,  at  Newtown. 

So  bold  a  defiance  aroused  the  wrath  of  the  governor,  who 
on  the  24th  of  the  month  issued  a  warrant  for  the  arrest  of 
both  the  men,  "  who  have  taken  upon  them  to  preach  in  a 
private  house,  without  having  obtained  any  License  for  so 
doing  .  .  .  they  are  gone  into  Long  Island  with  intent  there 
to  spread  their  pernicious  Doctrines  and  Principles,  to  the 
disturbance  of  the  Church  by  Law  established  and  of  the 
government  of  this  Province." 

The  warrant  was  executed  and  the  culprits  were  brought 
for  examination  before  the  governor,  when  Mackemie  de- 
fended his  liberty  on  the  toleration  act  of  England.  This 
act  Cornbury  declared  to  be  without  any  force  in  his  govern- 
ment, and  required  the  prisoners  to  give  bonds  for  good 
behavior  and  to  promise  not  to  preach  in  New  York  or  New 
Jersey.  Mackemie  was  willing  to  give  bonds,  but  refused 
the  promise,  and  both  men  were  put  in  jail,  where  they 
remained  six  weeks  and  four  days,  during  the  absence  of 
Chief  Justice  Mompesson.  On  the  return  of  the  judge  they 
were  brought  before  him  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  Hamp- 
ton was  discharged  without  trial,  as  "  a  man  of  less  interest," 
while  Mackemie  was  liberated  under  bonds  to  appear  for  trial 
at  the  next  session  of  the  court,  the  grand  jury  having  found 
a  true  bill  against  him,  that  "  he  did  take  upon  him  to  preach 
...  in  a  Conventicle  and  Meeting  not  permitted  or  allowed 
by  law,  under  color  or  excuse  of  Religion  in  other  manner 
than  according  to  our  Liturgy  and  practice  of  the  Church  of 
England."  On  the  trial  the  prosecution  relied  on  the  royal 
instructions  to  Cornbury,  rather  than  on  the  ministry  act,  as 
though  conscious  that  said  act,  while  establishing  a  Church, 
yet  inflicted  no  penalties  for  non-conformity.  Mackemie 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  353 

defended  himself,  producing  licenses  from  the  governors  of 
Virginia  and  Maryland,  contending  that  there  was  nothing 
in  the  English  common  or  statute  law  to  hold  him,  and  noth- 
ing in  the  laws  of  New  York  against  the  liberty  he  had  exer- 
cised. As  to  the  governor's  ecclesiastical  authority,  he 
argued  that  it  could  not  exist  without  the  due  promulgation 
of  law. 

The  plea  of  Mackemie  was  so  forceful  that  a  jury,  "packed 
to  convict,"  was  won  over  to  his  cause  and  unanimously 
acquitted  him.  The  court,  however,  would  not  release  him 
until  he  had  paid  all  the  costs,  which,  together  with  his 
expenses,  amounted  to  X83,  a  sufficiently  heavy  burden  ;  for 
which  he  must  yet  have  had  great  compensation  in  the  con- 
sciousness that  he  had  fought  a  great  fight  and  won  a  great 
victory  in  the  cause  of  human  liberty.  Never  again  did  a 
New  York  governor  attempt  to  silence  any  orderly  preaching 
of  the  gospel. 

To  Cornbury  the  issue  of  the  case  brought  a  bitter  mortifi- 
cation, and  he  seems  to  have  been  seriously  alarmed  for  the 
consequences  to  himself  from  the  reports  of  the  trial  made 
by  Mr.  Mackemie  and  his  friends  in  England  and  the 
colonies.  Writing  to  the  lords  of  trade  in  October,  1707,  he 
denied  that  Mackemie  had  applied  to  him  for  a  license,  and 
said,  "  I  Intreat  your  Lordships'  protection  against  this  mali- 
cious man,  who  is  well  known  in  Virginia  and  Maryland  to 
be  a  Disturber  of  the  Peace  and  quiet  of  all  places  he  comes 
into :  he  is  a  Jack  of  all  Trades,  he  is  a  Preacher,  a  Doctor 
of  Physic,  a  Merchant,  an  Attorney  or  Counsellor  at  Law, 
and,  which  is  worse  of  all,  a  Disturber  of  Governments." 1  It 
does  not  appear  that  Mackemie  ever  took  any  action  against 
Cornbury.  Nor  was  it  needed  to  the  damage  of  his  lordship's 
reputation,  which  his  course  had  so  deeply  stained. 

With  Cornbury's  departure  from  the  government  of  New 
York  all  attempts  at  coercion  upon  recognized  "  dissenting  " 
churches  and  ministers  ceased.     The  forms  which  asserted 
i  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  IV,  1186, 

2A 


354  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBEKTY 

a  religious  establishment  were  preserved,  but  both  in  Eng- 
land and  the  colony  it  had  become  evident  that  a  forcible 
conversion  of  a  dissenting  Church  to  the  Church  of  England, 
as  well  as  harsh  treatment  of  non-conformists,  was  not  advis- 
able. In  1707  the  bishop  of  London,  as  though  alarmed  by 
the  violent  proceedings  of  Cornbury,  wrote :  "  The  beginning 
of  any  new  establishment  ought  to  be  carried  on  gradually, 
which  will  make  all  steps  easier,  and  in  case  of  disappoint- 
ment the  matter  will  not  be  so  grievous." l 

The  successive  governors,  Hunter,  Burnet,  Montgomerie, 
Clinton,  Tryon,  all  received  from  the  king  instructions  to 
"  collate  to  benefices,"  to  demand  certificates  from  the  bishop 
of  London,  and  to  allow  liberty  of  conscience  to  all  "  except 
Papists."2  There  occur  also  in  the  records  many  applica- 
tions to  the  governor  for  permission  to  build  Churches,  even 
non-conforming  Churches,  and  for  protection  against  intru- 
sion by  irregular  preachers,  and  for  licenses  to  preachers.3 
But  there  were  no  more  interferences  with  the  liberty  of 
preaching  by  any  ministers  of  recognized  denominations.  So 
far  as  they  were  concerned,  the  victory  of  Mackemie  was 
final. 

Hunter.  The  troubles  of  Governor  Hunter  on  ecclesiastical  ques- 

tions came  to  him  from  the  clergy  of  his  own  Church.  They 
had  been  so  elated  by  Cornbury's  efforts  to  "  become  a  nurs- 
ing father"  to  the  Church  of  England,  that  they  resented 
Hunter's  more  tolerant  and  just  disposition.  When  they 
found  that  they  could  no  longer  use  the  governor  to  prose- 
cute their  grasping  and  ambitious  schemes,  they  turned  upon 
him  as  an  enemy,  doing  much,  both  in  the  province  and  in 
their  representations  in  England,  to  harass  the  administration 
of  the  best  governor  ever  sent  to  New  York. 

At  first  they  treated  him  with  deference,  and  in  their 
convention  of  1712,  assembled  by  him  to  "consult  about  the 

1  Colonial  History,  V,  29. 

2  Ibid.,  V,  95,  132,  135,  391. 

8  Documentary  History,  III,  289,  291,  294,  568,  570,  683. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  355 

affairs  of  the  Church,"  they  adopted  an  address  1  expressing 
"  our  humble  thanks  to  your  Excellency  for  this  opportunity 
of  meeting."  They  also  desired  "the  establishment  of  the 
Church  throughout  the  other  Counties  of  this  province,  as 
well  as  to  secure  and  corroborate  it  where  it  is  already 
settled."  According  to  Colonel  Morris,2  in  the  letter  recently 
noted  and  which  described  Hunter's  action  in  Church  mat- 
ters, the  governor  had  given  the  use  of  the  King's  Farm 
to  Trinity  parish  to  hold  during  the  time  of  his  government. 
This  tract,  bounded  by  the  present  Chambers  Street,  Broadway, 
Fulton  Street,  and  the  North  River,  had  been  granted  by  Gov- 
ernor Fletcher  to  Trinity  in  1696,  but  the  grant  was  annulled 
in  1699.  The  grant  was  renewed  by  Hunter  in  1711  for 
the  term  above  specified,  but  with  this  Mr.  Vesey,  the  rector 
of  Trinity,  was  not  satisfied  and  besought  the  governor  to 
influence  the  queen  to  give  the  farm  in  fee  to  the  Church. 
This  the  governor  refused  to  do,  and  thereby  brought  upon 
himself  the  enmity  of  the  clergy.  They  found  fault  with 
him  also  for  his  conduct  in  the  Jamaica  case,  condemning 
him,  as  Morris  says,  "  for  not  dragooning  Mr.  Poyer  into 
the  parsonage."  Vesey  declared  that  Hunter  was  "  no 
Churchman,"  and  prevailed  on  the  clergy  to  make  represen- 
tations against  him  to  the  bishop  of  London  and  the  board  of 
trade. 

Their  complaints  do  not  seem  to  have  had  large  influence 
on  the  other  side  of  the  sea,  while  the  governor  appears  to 
have  been  well  equipped  to  sustain  his  part  in  the  battle  of 
words.  Two  bits  of  his  letters  to  Secretary  Popple  of  the 
board  of  trade  are  worth  quoting  for  their  tone  of  easy  and 
contemptuous  indifference  toward  the  clerical  attack.  In  one 
he  wrote :  "  If  the  Society  (for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel)  take  not  more  care  for  the  future  than  has  been 
taken  hitherto  in  the  choice  of  their  Missionaries,  instead 
of  establishing  Religion,  they'l  destroy  all  Government  and 
good  manners."  Again,  referring  to  the  report  that  the 

1  Documentary  History,  III,  84.  2  Colonial  History,  V,  320. 


356  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

bishop  of  London  had  appointed  Mr.  Vesey  his  commissary 
in  New  York,  he  wrote:  "I  hope  his  Lordship  has  also 
constituted  Talbot  his  Commissary  for  the  Jerseys  & 
Phillips  for  Pennsylvania  .  .  .  and  then  I  shall  know  what 
he  means :  the  best  on't  is  that,  though  I  know  no  good 
they  have  ever  done,  I  know  no  great  hurt  they  can  do  at 
present." 

It  should  be  noted  that  during  the  period,  which  our 
Quakers.  narrative  has  reached,  the  Quakers  were  pressing  for  a  release 
from  disabilities.  Since  Stuyvesant's  time  they  had  suffered 
no  molestation,  beyond  fines  for  refusing  militia  service  and 
disfranchisement  for  refusal  of  the  oath  of  allegiance.  Many 
petitions  from  them  to  have  their  scruples  in  regard  to  these 
matters  respected  were  presented  to  the  governor  and 
council.1  The  response  of  the  council  was  that,  "  if  they 
would  not  train,  they  must  pay  the  penalty."  As  to  their 
prayer  for  the  ballot,  Attorney- General  Bradley  gave  an 
opinion,  that  "  the  English  laws  concerning  Quakers  did  not 
extend  to  the  colonies,  and  that  all  who  refuse  to  take  the 
Oath  should  be  excluded  from  the  poll."  This  opinion  was 
rendered  in  1734. 

Not  long  afterward  the  persistence  of  the  petitioners  ob- 
tained from  the  assembly  an  act,  giving  to  Quakers  the  same 
rights  which  they  possessed  in  England.2  This  conferred 
upon  them  the  right  to  vote,  but  made  no  release  from 
penalty  under  the  militia  law.  For  such  release  they  were 
compelled  to  wait  many  years,  nor  could  the  exaction  of  the 
penalty  be  set  down  to  religious  persecution.  The  militia 
laws  bore  equally  on  all  citizens  as  a  necessity  of  state,  with- 
out regard  to  religious  opinions.  It  was  at  every  man's 
option  either  to  train  or  pay  the  fine  for  failure.  That  the 
Quaker's  conscience  compelled  him  to  choose  the  latter  was 
no  hardship  by  the  law,  which  in  this  matter  made  no  dis- 
criminations. It  could  be  so  accounted  only  in  case  the 

1  Documentary  History •,  III,  605-612. 

2  Colonial  History,  VI,  28. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  357 

law  had  subjected  the  Quaker  alone  to  fine  for  refusal  of 
service.     But  this  was  never  done. 

In  1744  occurred  a  new  provocation  to  religious  persecu- 
tion already  noted  in  our  sketch  of  Connecticut.  It  is  an  in- 
teresting illustration  of  the  limitations  set  by  men  of  the  day 
around  the  idea  of  liberty.  Not  yet  had  the  conception  of 
the  breadth  of  that  principle  taken  hold  of  the  mind.  Every 
new  departure  from  stereotyped  doctrine  and  polity  was 
looked  upon  with  suspicion  and  subjected  to  judicial  inquisi- 
tion, with  more  or  less  of  hardship  inflicted  on  its  representa- 
tives. As  with  other  sects,  this  was  the  fate  of  the  Moravians  Moravians, 
in  New  England  and  New  York.  These  gentle  and  devoted 
people  had  found  places  of  gospel  labor  among  the  Indians 
in  Ulster  and  Dutchess  counties  and  over  the  border  in 
Connecticut,  presently  drawing  upon  themselves  the  un- 
friendly action  of  the  authorities  in  both  colonies,  the  reason 
whereof  was  in  no  fault  of  which  they  had  been  guilty,  but 
in  the  shameful  ignorance  and  malice  of  their  neighbors.1 

Nothing  could  be  more  beautiful  than  the  earnest  and  self- 
sacrificing  spirit  with  which  they  applied  themselves  to  their 
chosen  task  of  teaching  the  Indians  in  the  truths  of  the  Gos- 
pel and  the  decencies  of  civilized  life.  But  their  neigh- 
bors could  not  understand  them.  They  themselves  cared 
nothing  for  the  Indians.  The  Moravians  were  strangers  and 
with  a  strange  tongue,  while  their  religious  methods  and  ser- 
vices differed  from  those  to  which  their  critics  were  accus- 
tomed. It  is  not  at  all  unlikely,  also,  that  these  neighbors 
did  not  want  a  civilized  body  of  Indians  settled  down  among 
them.  Thus,  for  a  variety  of  reasons,  there  were  soon  sent  to 
Governor  Clinton  and  the  council  petitions  against  the  Mo- 
ravians and  their  work,  representing  that  they  were  disturbers 
of  public  order  and  were  suspected  of  being  "  disguised  Pa- 
pists." In  those  days  when  the  French  and  English  were  at 

1  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  617-621 ;  Colonial  History  of 
New  York,  VI,  269,  279,  311 ;  Colonial  Laws  of  New  York ;  American 
Church  Bwiew,  "Moravians  in  Housatonic  Valley,"  by  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews. 


358  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

swords  constantly  drawn  for  the  dominion  of  America,  and 
the  borders  were  the  scene  of  frequent  massacre  and  rapine, 
this  suspicion  of  "  Papistry  "  was  very  easy  to  throw  at  a 
stranger.  We  have  seen  something  of  it  in  Virginia  and  will 
meet  it  again  in  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland. 

In  answer  to  the  petitions  the  Moravian  teachers  were  sum- 
moned to  New  York,  and  there  examined  before  the  gov- 
ernor and  council.  As  the  result  of  this  examination  it  is 
recorded  that  the  council  could  "find  no  fault  in  them,"  save 
that  they  refused  the  oaths  for  conscience'  sake.  In  view  of 
this  and  the  opposition  near  the  scene  of  their  labors,  they 
were  ordered  to  leave  the  province.  Thus,  from  the  narrow- 
est of  spirits  was  broken  up  a  godly  work,  which  only  bigotry 
or  malevolence  could  condemn.  The  banished  Moravians 
took  themselves  and  many  of  their  converts,  first  to  more  lib- 
eral-minded Pennsylvania  and  then  to  Ohio,  where  awaited 
them  both  a  blessed  work  and  the  dreadful  catastrophe  of 
Gnadenhiitten. 

Their  New  York  enemies,  despite  this  departure,  were  not 
satisfied,  and  to  guard  against  return  secured  from  the  legis- 
lature the  enactment  of  the  most  disgraceful  law  that  de- 
faces the  statute  book  of  either  colony  or  state.  It  is  the  act 
Act  against  of  September  21,  1744,  entitled,  "An  Act  for  securing  his 
Moravians.  Majesty's  government  of  New  York."  It  purports  to  guard 
against  French  and  "popish"  influence,  but  is  solely  directed 
to  the  distress  of  the  pious  and  guileless  Moravians ;  and  or- 
dains that "  no  vagrant  Preacher,  Moravian,  or  disguised  Pa- 
pist, shall  Preach  or  Teach,  Either  in  Public  or  Private  without 
first  taking  the  Oaths  appointed  by  this  Act  and  obtaining  a 
Lycence  from  the  Governor  or  Commissioner  in  Church  for 
the  Time  being."  The  penalties  of  the  act  were  fine,  impris- 
onment, banishment,  and,  in  case  of  return,  "  Such  Punish- 
ment as  shall  be  inflicted  by  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  not  extending  to  Life  or  Limb." 

Against  this  oppression  of  his  brethren  the  great   Mora- 
zinzendorf.    vian  leader,  Count  Zinzendorf,  then  in  London,  protested  in 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  359 

complaint  to  the  lords  of  trade.  He  wrote:  "By  an  al- 
most evident  instigation  of  the  Calvinist  clergy  and  a  mean 
sort  of  people  who  through  their  ignoble  disposition  easily 
take  occasion  thereto,  there  has  arisen  an  evil  Custom  of  dis- 
turbing and  burdening  honest  Men  of  all  Sorts,  who  have 
settled  themselves  in  those  Colonies,  hoping  to  enjoy  an  un- 
restrained Freedom  of  Religion.  ...  I  petition  for  two  Dec- 
larations or  Orders.  The  one  to  keep  honest  people,  as  well 
strangers  in  as  inhabitants  of  America,  from  being  chicaned 
with  and  plagued  without  the  least  reason  and,  as  it  were, 
only  de  gayete  de  Coeur.  The  second,  that  no  body,  but  least 
of  all  the  Indians,  shall  be  hindered  from  joyning  with  any 
Protestant  Church  whatever,  which  in  his  ideas  is  the  most 
solid,  according  to  the  measures  taken  for  encouraging  For- 
eigners to  settle  in  the  British  Colonies  in  America." 

This  complaint  of  Zinzendorf,  together  with  another  from 
M.  de  Gersdorff  "  in  behalf  of  himself  and  the  Moravians  in 
New  York,"  the  board  of  trade  referred  to  Governor  Clinton,  Governor 
inquiring  what  the  Moravians  had  done  to  deserve  such  treat-  Clmton- 
ment.  The  reply  of  the  governor  indicates  the  thought  in 
his  mind,  that  violence  of  epithet  is  sufficient  to  justify  the 
harshness  complained  of.  He  described  the  Moravians  as 
"Suspicious,  Vagrant,  Stroling  Preachers,"  who  "debauch 
the  Minds  of  the  people  with  Enthusiastical  Notions,  at  least, 
and  Created  Great  Seisms  &  Divisions  in  the  protestant  Con- 
gregations." They  were  "  suspected  of  being  popish  emissaries 
and  having  designs  against  his  Majesty's  government."  He 
denounced  the  free  asylum  for  such  people  in  Pennsylvania  as 
"a  most  pernicious  thing."  Then  he  launched  out  in  a  dia- 
tribe against  Whitefield  as  laboring  "  with  real  design  to  fill 
his  own  Pockets,"  declaring  the  Moravians  to  be  of  the  same 
class,  who  "  compassed  sea  and  land  to  make  Proselytes  " ; 
from  which  last  assertion  it  would  seem  that,  though  the  gov- 
ernor could  quote  Scripture,  he  knew  not  how  to  apply  it. 

This  letter  of  Clinton  was  written   in   1746.      Only  five 
years  afterward,  an  item  of  record  shows,  both  how  short- 


360 


RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Moravians 
build  in 
New  York 
City. 


Waning 
power. 


lived  was  this  spasm  of  religious  bigotry,  and  how  the  gov- 
ernor's ecclesiastical  authority  had  waned.  It  appears  that 
Moravians,  undeterred  by  the  hostility  of  the  government, 
had  not  ceased  coming  to  the  province.  A  number  of  them 
had  settled  in  the  city  of  New  York  and  in  1751  by  formal 
letter  notified  the  governor  of  their  "  intention  of  building  a 
Church  in  this  city." l  For  this  building  they  neither  asked 
nor  expected  the  permission  of  the  governor,  and  by  him  no 
prohibition  was  interposed. 

That  the  pretensions  of  the  civil  authority  to  interference 
in  religious  matters  had  greatly  weakened  is  shown  by  an- 
other incident  of  Clinton's  term  of  office,  which  occurred  in 
1746.  About  that  time  there  came  to  New  York  a  certain 
John  Hofgoed,  who  appears  to  have  been  an  irregular  Lu- 
theran preacher.  He  applied  to  the  governor  for  a  license, 
but  Clinton  refused  and  forbade  him  to  exercise  ministerial 
functions.  This  order  he  disregarded,  to  the  great  annoyance 
of  the  Lutheran  minister  and  Church  in  the  city,  evidently 
intruding  his  service  where  it  was  not  desired.  To  rid  them- 
selves of  the  infliction,  the  Lutherans  appealed  to  the  governor, 
praying  him  "  to  Interfere  in  this  Behalf  and  Supress  the  fur- 
ther proceedings  of  the  said  John  Lodewick  Hofgoed  by  such 
Ways  and  Means  as  your  Excellency  in  Council  shall  think 
fit  and  proper  to  be  Done."  So  far  as  the  record  goes,  it 
appears  that  Clinton  thought  "  fit  and  proper  "  to  do  nothing, 
for  no  order  or  prosecution  is  noted.  Hofgoed,  however,  re- 
tired from  the  city  and  appeared  at  Fishkill  in  1749,  where 
his  attempts  to  preach  and  intrude  upon  the  regularly  con- 
stituted parish  caused  another  petition  to  the  governor,  in 
which  the  Fishkill  people  implored  him  to  silence  the  trouble- 
some minister.  To  this  petition  also  Clinton  turned  a  deaf 
ear,  showing  how  the  spirit  of  the  time  had  changed  from  that 
of  Fletcher  or  Cornbury,  neither  of  whom  would  have  delayed 
to  clap  the  delinquent  into  bonds.  It  was  becoming  evident 
that  any  minister,  who  disturbed  not  the  public  peace,  might 

1  Documentary  History,  III,  621. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  361 

exercise  his  ministry,  and  that  contentions  of  order  in  the 
Churches  themselves,  touching  doctrine  and  ordination,  must 
be  decided  by  their  own  authorities  without  appeal  to  the 
civil  power. 

This  remark,  of  course,  does  not  apply  to  the  established 
Church,  which,  by  dint  of  constant  perversity  of  statement, 
had  become  entirely  of  the  Church  of  England.  Within  this 
Church  the  governors  continued  to  exercise  a  semblance  of 
authority,  while,  until  the  opening  of  the  Revolution,  there 
were  frequent  efforts  to  advance  its  interests  to  the  detriment 
of  other  Churches  in  the  province.  Such  efforts,  however, 
it  must  be  noted,  came  not  so  much  by  way  of  government 
initiative  as  by  the  persistent  demand  of  the  Church  itself  Theestab- 
for  the  active  assistance  of  the  civil  power.  It  will  hereafter 
be  shown  that  this  demand,  made  by  a  Church  representing 
not  more  than  a  fifteenth  part  of  the  people1  and  with  an 
arrogance  of  assertion  difficult  for  "  dissenters  "  to  bear,  had 
no  small  influence  in  preparing  the  population  for  entire 
separation  from  the  mother  country  in  both  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  affairs. 

But  this  establishment  was  forced  to  content  itself  with 
the  original  limitations  of  the  act  of  1693.  Though  implored 
by  the  Episcopal  clergy,  the  government  never  made  any 
effort  to  widen  its  domain  beyond  the  four  counties  named 
in  that  act.  The  temper  of  the  people  at  large  was  too  well 
known  to  permit  the  attempt.  Indeed,  had  the  people  had 
their  way,  the  Church  would  have  been  speedily  disestab- 
lished. Repeated  efforts  to  secure  that  end  were  made  by 
the  assembly,  to  be  as  often  defeated  by  the  governor  and 
council.  The  status  remained  until  the  coming  of  Indepen- 
dence, when  the  nameless  establishment  in  New  York  fell 
with  the  royal  power. 

i  Smith,  New  York,  I,  337. 


362  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


II.   Maryland 

The  contribution  of  the  history  of  Maryland  to  the  ques- 
tion of  Church  and  State  and  the  related  principle  of  Reli- 
gious Liberty  is  a  story  of  peculiar  interest  and  vicissitudes. 
At  different  times  Maryland  faced  both  ways,  for  liberty  and 
against  it,  while  the  conduct  of  affairs  was  in  the  midst  of 
chronic  broils  and  factions.  A  proprietary  government,  it  was 
torn  by  continual  jealousy.  A  foundation  of  Roman  Catho- 
lics in  the  avowed  interests  of  religious  freedom,  it  was 
wrested  from  their  grasp  and  made  hostile  to  both  their  faith 
and  the  rights  of  conscience. 

Caivert.  Its  projector,  Sir  George  Calvert,  was  a  personal  friend  of 

James  L,  and  one  of  his  secretaries  of  state.  In  1624  he  was 
converted  to  the  Church  of  Rome  and  openly  confessed  the 
change,  resigning  at  the  same  time  his  secretaryship  and 
offering  to  retire  altogether  from  the  government.  The 
king's  friendship  forbade  the  latter  and  retained  Calvert  in 
the  privy  council,  and  also  raised  him  to  the  peerage  as  Lord 
Baltimore.  This  friendship  was  continued  by  Charles  I.,  on 
his  accession  to  the  throne  in  1625,  with  the  result  that  Bal- 
timore's colonization  schemes  found  a  ready  and  gracious 
attention  on  the  part  of  the  king. 

Not  long  after  the  accession  of  Charles,  Baltimore  set  out 
with  several  companions,  among  whom  were  three  Jesuit 
priests,  White,  Copley,  and  Altham,  to  take  possession  of 
his  patent  of  Avalon  in  New  Foundland,  which  had  been 
granted  to  him  by  James  in  1624.  The  rigor  of  the  climate, 
during  a  trial  of  less  than  two  years,  concluded  Baltimore  to 
abandon  his  intention  of  colonizing  that  locality,  and  he  sailed 
southward  in  search  of  more  promising  regions.  This  search 
brought  him  to  Virginia,  where,  as  noted  in  the  chapter  on 
Virginia,  he  was  not  suffered  to  remain,  because  of  his  declin- 
ing to  take  the  oath  of  supremacy.  This  expulsion  took 
place  in  1628,  when  Baltimore,  leaving  his  wife  in  Virginia, 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  363 

returned  to  England  to  seek  a  new  patent  from  the  king  1 
While  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  colony  he  had  been  able 

>  look  at  the  country  on  both  sides  of  it,  and  at  first  selected 
that  to  the  south  of  the  James  River,  but  concluded  to  sub- 

atute  for  this  in  his  application  the  country  to  the  north  of 
the  Potomac,  which  he  and  his  Jesuit  friends  described  as 
"pleasant  to  look  upon  and  fitted  for  the  homes  of  a  haDDv 
people."  ^J 

The  application  for  a  patent  covering  the  regions  of  the 
Chesapeake  was  made  in  1630  and  met  with  the  royal  favor, 
though  the  patent  was  not  issued  until  1632.  Meanwhile 
Lord  Baltimore  had  died,  and  his  son  Cecil  succeeded  to  his 
barony  and  his  colonizing  plans.  Thus,  the  Maryland  patent  Maryland 

led  to  the  second  Lord  Baltimore,  whose  life  and  zeal  Patent- 
were  fully  engaged  in  the  schemes  and  desires  of  his  father. 

The  patent  for  the   designated  province  — to   be   called 
Maryland,  in  honor  of  Queen  Henrietta  Maria  — is  remark- 
able for  several  peculiar  features,  and  for  meaning  much 
more  than  it  says  on  the  subject  of  religion.     It  was  un- 
doubtedly drawn  up  by  Baltimore  himself,  with  a  view  to 
permit  the  exercise  of  religious  freedom.     The  king  is  repre-  Religious 
sented  as  moved  "  with  the  laudable  and  pious  desire  of  ex-  freedom- 
tending  alike  the  Christian  religion  and  the  territories  of  the 
King's  Empire,"  in  the  pursuance  of  which  desire  various 
rights  of  genuine  sovereignty  are  conferred  on  Lord  Balti- 
more.    As  Carolina,  thirty  years  afterward,  Maryland  became 
a  palatinate,  and  its  ruler  had  almost  regal   powers.     He 
possessed  "  the  Patronages  and  Advowsons  of  all  Churches, 
which  shall  happen  to  be  built,  together  with  licence  and 
faculty  of   erecting  and   founding  Churches,   Chapels,  and 
places  of  worship  .  .  .  and  of  causing  the  same  to  be  dedi- 
cated and  constituted  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of 
our  Kingdom  of  England,  with  all  and  singular  such  and  as 
ample  rights,  privileges,  sovereignties  &c.  .  .  .  as  any  Bishop 

1  Johnson,  Foundation  of  Maryland,  p.  18.    (Maryland  Historical  Society 
Publication,  No.  18.) 


364  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  Durham,  within  the  Bishoprick  or  County  Palatine  of 
Durham  in  our  Kingdom  of  England,  ever  hath."  All  the 
powers  granted  Baltimore  was  "  to  hold  of  the  King  in  free 
and  common  socage  .  .  .  yielding  unto  the  King  and  his 
successors  Two  Indian  Arrows  of  those  parts,  to  be  delivered 
at  the  Castle  of  Windsor  every  year  on  Tuesday  in  Easter 
week,  and  also  the  fifth  part  of  all  gold  and  silver  ore  that 
shall  happen  to  be  found."  This  sovereignty  is  "subject 
only  to  one  condition,  namely ;  that  it  should  not  be  such  as 
might  prejudice  the  true  Christian  Religion  or  allegiance  to 
the  crown." 

This  charter  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  establishing  the 
Church.  Church  of  England  in  Maryland.  But  this  is  not  correct. 
The  Church  of  England  is  not  mentioned  in  the  instrument, 
while  the  phrase,  "  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  our 
Kingdom  of  England,"  might  mean  much  or  little,  as  circum- 
stances might  vary.1  Baltimore  construed  the  charter  as 
conferring  ecclesiastical  supremacy  on  the  proprietary,  which 
he  was  to  exercise  according  to  those  laws.  This  is  to  say, 
as  those  laws  made  the  king  head  of  the  English  Church,  the 
charter  made  Baltimore  head  of  the  Maryland  Church.  It 
did  not  specifically  tell  him  to  conform  the  Church  of  Mary- 
land to  the  English  model,  but  left  it  in  his  hand  to  do  as  he 
wished  and  as  he  found  what  Church  he  desired.  Under  the 
terms  of  the  charter  it  was  competent  for  him  to  establish 
Romanism,  Episcopacy,  Independency,  or  Presbyterianism. 
The  power  of  establishment  is  plainly  in  the  instrument,  but 
its  character  is  undefined. 

Professor  Petrie  2  specifies  three  constructions  which  have 
been  put  on  this  clause :  1.  The  Churches  must  be  of  the 
Church  of  England ;  2.  If  Churches  are  formed,  they  must 
be  of  the  Church  of  England ;  3.  If  they  are  formed,  they 
may  be  of  that  communion.  He  argues  also  that  the  intent 

1  The  Carolina  proprietaries,  differing  from   Baltimore,   construed   the 
phrase  as  establishing  the  Anglican  Church. 

2  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X ;  "  Church  and  State.11 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  365 

of  the  Charter  was  to  establish  that  Church.  But  the  reply 
is  cogent  that  if  such  intention  had  been  clear  in  mind 
instructions  would  have  been  explicit  to  fulfil  it,  as  in  other 
colonies.  In  the  absence  of  any  such  explicit  command,  the 
most  that  can  be  made  of  the  clause  is  a  suggestion  of  the 
manner  in  which  Baltimore  should  exercise  his  ecclesiastical 
power. 

One  cannot,  at  the  first  glance,  escape  the  suspicion  of 
a  somewhat  disingenuous  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  proprie- 
tary in  this  allusion  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of  England. 
The  casual  reader  could  easily  suppose  that  the  establishment 
of  the  English  Church  was  designed.  It  is  possible,  though 
not  probable,  that  the  king  so  supposed.  At  all  events,  it 
looks  deceptive.  Anderson,  who  enlarges  on  the  shameful 
character  of  such  a  charter  given  to  a  Romanist,  quotes  Mur- 
ray as  saying,  "It  was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  blinding- 
the  public  mind."  1 

The  judgment  is  not  unjust.     But  the  circumstances  were 
peculiar,  and,  if  ever  a  deceptive  turn  of  words  is  justified, 
they  certainly  justified  this  "blinding  "  purpose  of  Baltimore.' 
limself  a  devout  Roman  Catholic,  he  desired  to  make  a 
refuge  for  the  persecuted  brethren  of  his  own  faith,  who  in 
England  were  subjected  to  countless  limitations,  fines,  and 
penalties.     It  was  impossible  for  him  to  obtain  a  charter  with 
that  desire  avowed  in  the  instrument.     All  England,  New 
England,  and  Virginia  would  have  been  roused  to  a  storm  of 
indignation.     At  the  same  time,  it  was  impossible  to  obtain 
a  charter  expressive  of  the  other  and  as  great  desire  of  his 
heart,  to  confer  on  Maryland  the  boon  of  complete  religious 
liberty.    The  English  prelate  and  presbyter,  the  Massachusetts 
Puritan  and  Virginia  Churchman,  would  have  been  in  arms  at 
once.    The  times  were  not  yet  ripe  for  the  "  lively  experiment," 
which  the  second  Charles  allowed  Williams  to  try  in  Rhode 
Island,  "  that  a  flourishing  civil  state  may  stand  and  best  be 
maintained,  with  a  full  liberty  of  religious  concernments." 
1  History  of  the  Colonial  Church,  II,  113. 


366  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

All  the  conditions  demanded  that  the  charter  should  con- 
tain some  ecclesiastical  direction,  while  Baltimore  desired 
that  such  direction  should  be  in  consistency  with  both  of  his 
dominant  purposes,  to  protect  his  persecuted  brethren  and  to 
give  freedom  to  all.  Both  purposes  were  noble,  and  while 
they  mark  for  us  the  lofty  character  of  this  founder  of  a  state 
—  more  lofty  because  so  immensely  superior  to  almost  all 
men  of  the  age  —  we  may  be  content  to  set  down  his  decep- 
tive phrase  to  the  shrewdness  of  the  politician.  He  knew 
that  there  was  no  other  way  to  gain  these  noble  ends  than  to 
take  into  his  own  hand  the  direction  of  the  religious  affairs  of 
his  province,  according  to  the  method  of  the  king  in  England. 
So  Baltimore  became  under  the  charter  virtual  king  and  head 
of  the  Church  in  Maryland,  if  he  should  choose  to  exercise 
supremacy. 

If  ever  there  was  a  man  fit  for  so  high  a  station,  certainly 
Baltimore.  Baltimore  was  such.  He  "  deserves  to  be  ranked  among  the 
most  wise  and  benevolent  lawgivers  of  all  ages.  He  was  the 
first  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  world  to  seek  for  religious 
security  and  peace  by  the  practice  of  justice,  and  not  by  the 
exercise  of  power."  l  The  first  Lord  Baltimore  died  before 
his  noble  scheme  could  be  realized,  but  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  colony  was  shaped  by  his  broad  and  liberal  mind,  while 
his  son  Cecil  proved  a  worthy  follower  in  his  father's  steps,  to 
put  these  plans  in  execution.  It  is  possible  to  say,  as  some 
have  said,  that  the  offer  of  complete  freedom,  with  which  the 
Baltimores  began  their  colony,  was  but  a  guise,  under  which 
they  sought  relief  for  their  co-religionists,  in  no  less  compre- 
hensive way  to  be  secured.  But  it  is  neither  necessary  nor 
just  to  so  judge.  Every  detail  of  their  directions  touching  on 
the  subject  evince  the  motives  of  broad  minds,  not  seeking 
merely  a  selfish  freedom,  but  grasping  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  human  rights.  Unlike  the  Puritan,  they  did  not 
arrogate  to  themselves  the  sole  possession  of  the  truth,  or 
claim  only  for  their  own  views  freedom  of  expression.  They 

i  Bancroft,  United  States,  I,  244. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  367 

held  rather  to  the  dignity  of  the  human  soul,  responsible 
alone  to  Him  who  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  to  that  Mas- 
ter alone  to  stand  or  fall.  This  they  preserved  in  all  condi- 
tions ;  nor  did  they,  like  the  men  of  Massachusetts,  forget  in 
their  accession  to  power  the  principles  of  liberty  confessed  in 
their  days  of  hardship.  They  stand  level  with  Roger  Will- 
iams in  the  history  of  human  freedom,  and  among  founders 
of  states  worthy  to  rank  with  Winthrop,  Hooker,  and  Penn. 

The  charter,1  thus  given  to  a  Roman  Catholic  and  involv- 
ing so  great  possibilities,  did  not  escape  criticism ;  nor  did 
the  dubious  allusion  to  the  English  ecclesiastical  laws  entirely 
blind  the  public  mind.  Scarcely  had  the  instrument  passed 
the  broad  seal  when  objections  were  heard.  These  had  a  objections, 
double  source,  coming  from  both  Protestants  and  Romanists. 
The  former  complained  that  it  gave  too  great  power  to  the 
proprietary,  all  the  more  to  be  deprecated  because  he  was  a 
Roman  Catholic.  The  latter  objected  to  Baltimore's  schemes 
on  the  ground  that  religious  freedom  should  not  be  allowed 
in  any  community.  Strangely  enough,  this  latter  objection 
found  more  strenuous  speech  than  the  former.  To  the  former 
the  king's  pleasure  was  a  sufficient  answer ;  while  the  latter 
was  made  to  assume  the  form  of  a  question  of  conscience ; 
as  to  whether  a  sincere  Romanist  could  accept  a  charter 
allowing  freedom  of  worship  to  all  varieties  of  religionists. 

The  specially  singular  thing  about  this  Roman  contention 
is,  that  the  charter  itself  did  not  decree  religious  liberty  in 
the  new  colony,  nor  contain  a  line  suggestive  of  its  institution 
there.  The  entire  decision  in  regard  to  the  religious  status 
of  Maryland  was  put  at  the  discretion  of  Baltimore.  So  far 
as  its  terms  could  forecast  that  status,  inasmuch  as  the  pro- 
prietary was  a  professed  Roman  Catholic,  the  Protestant 
contention  that  the  colony  would  be  Romanist  appears  far 
more  just.  The  situation  can  be  explained  only  by  the  fact 
that  Baltimore,  notwithstanding  the  "blinding"  phrase  of 
the  charter,  made  no  secret  of  his  intention.  This  intention 

1  Foundation  of  Maryland,  pp.  15-30. 


368  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

was  frankly  expressed  in  personal  conversation,  and  more 
publicly  in  advertisements  for  adventurers,  in  which  was 
promised  the  free  exercise  of  each  man's  religion.  Certainly, 
this  frankness  may  go  far  to  remove  the  charge  of  disingenu- 
ous purpose  in  the  charter. 

At  all  events,  it  was  clearly  understood  by  very  many  that 
the  proprietary  did  not  intend  to  found  the  colony  within  the 
lines  of  the  Roman  faith.  In  consequence  there  arose  much 
discussion  among  the  English  Roman  Catholics,  by  some  of 
whom  it  was  urged  to  Baltimore  that  he  ought  not,  as  a  true 
son  of  the  Holy  Father,  to  undertake  such  a  scheme ;  while 
others  were  made  to  doubt  whether  they  could  with  good 
consciences  associate  themselves  with  him  in  the  enterprise. 
In  this  dilemma  Baltimore  laid  the  question  before  Father 
Blount,  the  provincial  of  the  English  Jesuits,  who  set  aside 
the  objections  and  argued  for  the  charter  and  the  colony  as 
designed  by  its  founder.  In  the  course  of  his  paper  he  used 
surprising  language  from  such  a  source,  which  has  no  parallel 
in  the  utterances  of  the  Romanism  of  the  day.  "  Conver- 
sion," he  wrote,  "  in  matters  of  Religion,  if  it  be  forced,  should 
give  little  satisfaction  to  a  wise  state  .  .  .  for  those,  who  for 
worldly  respects  will  breake  their  faith  with  God,  will  do  it 
on  a  fit  occasion  much  sooner  with  men."  This  opinion  of 
their  spiritual  superior  resolved  the  doubts  of  Baltimore  and 
his  associates,  and,  as  Johnson  remarks,  may  be  taken  as 
"  proof  that  the  charter  of  Maryland  was  then  considered  and 
treated  as  securing  liberty  of  conscience  to  Roman  Catholics ; 
and  that  the  Society  of  Jesus  undertook  to  further  and  extend 
the  planting  of  the  colony,  with  full  knowledge  that  the 
principle  of  toleration  was  to  be  adopted  as  one  of  the  funda- 
mental institutions  of  the  province." 

Settlement.  The  ^TS^  expedition  to  the  new  colony  set  forth  in  1632, 
and  was  composed  of  two  hundred  and  twenty  emigrants. 
Of  this  number  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  were  Protes- 
tants, who  took  the  oath  of  supremacy  at  the  time  of  sailing. 
The  rest  of  the  company  were  Romanists,  among  them  the 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  369 

three  Jesuit  friends  of  Baltimore  and  twenty  gentlemen  of 
position  and  fortune.  At  the  outset  the  substantial  strength 
of  the  colony  was  thus  Roman  Catholic,  while  the  great 
majority  of  the  Protestants  were  artisans,  farmers,  and  ser- 
vants. Baltimore  remained  in  England,  to  there  superintend 
the  interests  of  the  colony,  and  sent  his  brother,  Leonard 
Calvert,  in  the  capacity  of  governor.1 

The  expedition  had  hardly  disembarked  on  the  shore  of 
the  Chesapeake  when  it  met  the  beginnings  of  a  trouble, 
which  was  to  annoy  the  colony  for  many  years,  an  opposition 
in  which  the  lust  of  gain  and  religious  bigotry  had  about 
equal  parts.  There  is  no  need  to  recount  here  the  details  of 
the  struggle  between  Clayborne  and  Baltimore,  and  the  Clayborne. 
present  reference  is  made  only  to  point  out  its  religious  ele- 
ment.2 This  Clayborne  was  secretary  of  Virginia  and  had 
obtained  from  the  governor  of  that  colony  permission  to 
explore  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  in  1631  secured  a  royal  license 
to  "  traffic  in  those  parts."  Under  this  license  he  took  posses- 
sion of  Kent  Island  and  parts  of  the  shore  of  the  mainland. 
The  new  colony  with  a  patent  covering  these  stations  nat- 
urally seemed  to  him  as  an  invader  of  his  rights,  while  the 
Roman  faith  of  Baltimore  could  ill  be  suffered  by  Clayborne's 
avowed  Puritanism.  Nor  was  it  difficult  for  the  secretary  of 
popery-hating  Virginia  to  enlist  many  sympathizers,  to  whom 
the  establishment  of  a  Roman  Catholic  colony  as  their  next 
door  neighbor  appeared  among  all  evils  the  most  to  be  feared 
and  deprecated.3 

1  Foundation  of  Maryland,  p.  31. 

2  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  89. 

8  This  animosity  of  Clayborne  was  intensified  by  an  incident  related  in 
Captain  Yong's  Voyage  to  Virginia  and  Delaware  Bay  (Massachusetts  His- 
torical Collections,  IV,  9  ;  82,  note),  1634.  Yong  brought  out  with  him  his 
nephew,  George  Evelin,  as  an  agent  for  Clayborne's  London  partners,  who 
by  some  means  induced  Clayborne  to  go  to  England.  During  the  absence  of 
Clayborne,  Evelin,  who  was  a  Romanist,  took  possession  of  his  property  and 
turned  over  Kent  Island  and  the  neighboring  station  to  Calvert,  whose  object 
they  supposed  to  be  "to  make  Maryland  predominantly  Catholic."  This 
2s 


370 


RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS   LIBERTY 


First 
assembly. 


Exclusion 
of  clergy. 


The  trouble  hence  arising  had  many  outbreaks  of  violence, 
and  culminated  in  the  commonwealth  time,  as  will  be  noted, 
in  the  overthrow  of  Baltimore's  government  through  the 
attack  of  Clayborne  and  Bennett.  That  overthrow  they  tried 
to  justify  in  their  remarkable  "  Declaration  against  the  Patent 
of  Maryland,"  which  bears  date  of  1649,  and  in  which  there 
is  hardly  a  word  of  truth.1  It  charges  Baltimore  with  "pro- 
fessing the  establishment  of  the  Romish  religion  only."  It 
asserts,  "  They  suppressed  the  poor  protestants  amongst  them, 
to  protect  chiefly  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  in  the  free 
exercise  of  the  same.  .  .  .  There  is  not  the  least  mention  of 
a  King  in  all  their  government  ...  as  if  hee  (Baltimore) 
had  been  absolute  Prince  or  King.  .  .  .  The  pattent  of 
Maryland  was  grounded  on  noe  good  foundation,  the  King 
beeing  misinformed." 

That  the  religious  action  of  the  new  colony  was  quite 
other  than  this  declaration  asserts  is  abundantly  proved 
by  the  colonial  records.  The  instructions  of  Baltimore 
were  explicit  on  the  point  of  liberty,  and  the  early  legisla- 
tion sought  the  same  end.  Until  1637  the  authority  of  the 
governor  existed  alone,  without  any  legislative  assembly  or 
regular  system  of  law.  In  that  year  the  first  assembly 
met  on  the  summons  of  Calvert  and  was  composed  entirely 
of  Roman  Catholics.  The  three  priests  were  summoned  with 
the  other  freemen,  but  excused  themselves  from  attendance. 
Johnson2  notes  that,  from  the  beginning,  no  priest  or 
minister  has  ever  sat  in  a  Maryland  legislature.  This  ex- 
clusion is  continued  to  this  day  and  finds  place  in  the 
constitution  of  the  State,  which  makes  ministers  ineligible 
to  that  position. 

robbery  was  enough  to  rouse  Clayborne's  resentment,  and  he  made  much, 
not  only  of  his  own  wrongs,  but  of  this  perversion  to  Roman  Catholic  pos- 
session. "But,"  says  Leah  and  Rachel,  "it  was  not  religion,  it  was  not 
punctilios  they  stood  upon  ;  it  was  that  sweete,  that  rich,  that  large  country 
they  aymed  at."  (Force,  Historical  Tracts,  "  Leah  and  Bachel.") 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  III,  23. 

2  Foundation  of  Maryland,  p.  94. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  371 

The  special  business  for  which  the  assembly  was  summoned 
was  to  act  upon  a  "  Body  of  Laws  "  1  prepared  and  sent  over  Body  of 
by  Baltimore  for  legislative  adoption.  It  is  not  at  all  probable  Laws' 
that  either  he  or  Governor  Calvert  apprehended  the  recep- 
tion this  code  would  meet.  Doubtless,  both  of  them  expected 
a  ready  and  prompt  legislative  ratification  of  the  proprietary's 
will.  But  such  did  not  take  place,  and  it  makes  a  striking 
indication  of  the  tendency  of  American  air  to  breed  a  spirit 
of  independence  to  note  that  this  Body  of  Laws  was  rejected 
by  the  assembly,  which  appointed  a  committee  to  digest  and 
report  a  code  for  the  consideration  of  the  legislature  and  then 
adjourned.  After  but  few  days,  too  few  for  the  preparation 
of  a  new  code,  the  assembly  met  again  and  received  the 
report  of  the  committee,  which  presented  the  same  laws 
that  they  had  rejected  before.  The  action  of  the  assembly 
was  a  prompt  adoption  of  the  report,  and  enactment  of 
the  "  Body  of  Laws " !  Thus  early  did  the  American  set- 
tlers learn  how  to  stickle  for  a  point.  They  had  no  objection 
to  the  code  itself,  but  to  Baltimore's  initiative.  They  would 
not  formally  ratify  his  will.  What  laws  they  passed  must 
be  their  own,  and  transmitted  to  governor  and  proprietary 
for  approval. 

The  first  law  in  regard  to  the  Church  passed  by  the  as- 
sembly was,  "  An  Act  for  Church  Liberties,"  which  in  simple 
and  terse  language,  strikingly  like  that  of  the  Great  Charter 
of  England,  recites,  — 

"  Holy  Church  within  this  province  shall  have  and  enjoy  church 
all  her  Rights,  liberties  and  Franchises  wholly  and  without  liberties. 
Blemish."  2 

This  was  in  harmony  with  the  mandate  of  the  charter  to 
Baltimore  that  "  nothing  should  be  done  contrary  to  God's 
Holy  Religion."  It  is  quite  as  notable  for  what  it  omits  as 
for  what  it  declares,  making  no  distinctions  among  the  vari- 
ous Christian  bodies,  each  of  which  claimed  to  be  Holy 
Church  and  to  represent  God's  Holy  Religion.  There  can 

1  Foundation  of  Maryland,  p.  39.  2  Acts  of  Assembly,  I,  96. 


372  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

be  no  doubt,  indeed,  that  these  Maryland  lawmakers  were 
Romanists  to  a  man ;  or  that,  had  they  been  called  upon  to 
specify  the  particular  communion  which  to  them  was  Holy 
Church,  with  one  voice  they  would  have  named  the  Church 
of  Rome.  But  this  definition  they  studiously  refrained  from 
making,  leaving  to  each  citizen  of  the  colony  to  decide  for 
himself  as  to  what  communion  he  would  call  Holy  Church, 
Religious  and  asserting  that  that  Church  must  be  free  from  all  inter- 
liberty,  ference  by  the  civil  power.  This  was  practical  religious 
liberty. 

There  is  another  illustration  of  this  freedom  in  the  oath 
prescribed  (1636)  by  Baltimore  to  be  taken  by  all  officers  of 
the  colony, l  of  which  a  portion  affirmed :  —  "I  will  not,  by 
myself  or  any  other,  directly  or  indirectly,  trouble,  molest,  or 
discountenance  any  person,  professing  to  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ,  for,  or  in  respect  of,  religion;  but  merely  as  they 
shall  be  found  faithful  and  well-deserving ;  my  aim  shall  be 
public  unity,  and  if  any  person  or  officer  shall  molest  any 
person,  professing  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  on  account  of 
his  religion,  I  will  protect  the  person  molested  and  punish 
the  offender."  To  cause  the  spirit  of  this  oath  to  be  observed 
also  among  the  people,  a  proclamation  was  published  in  the 
colony,  forbidding  "  all  unseasonable  disputations  in  point  of 
religion,  tending  to  the  disturbance  of  the  public  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  colony,  and  to  the  opening  of  faction  in  reli- 
gion." Under  this  order,  William  Lewis,  a  Romanist,  was 
fined  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  for  "  interfering  by  op- 
probrious reproaches  with  two  Protestants."2 

A  still  further  indication  of  this  liberal  intent  is  to  be 
found  in  a  bit  of  legislation,  against  which  the  Jesuit  priests 
protested  vehemently,  but  for  which  they  were  themselves 
chiefly  responsible  and  were  quite  unable  to  prevent.3  We 
may  note  in  passing  that  the  Jesuit  fathers  had  immediately 

1  Hawks,  Contributions,  II,  27. 

2  Foundation  of  Maryland,  pp.  52,  53. 
8  1 bid.,  p.  56. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  373 

applied  themselves  to  earnest  missionary  work  among  the 
Indians,  with  a  very  flattering  success.  Father  White  was 
specially  diligent  and  devoted,  conquering  in  a  short  time 
the  Indian  dialect,  in  which  he  prepared  a  catechism,  and 
for  the  printing  of  which  he  imported  the  first  press  brought 
to  America.1 

But  they  were  ambitious  of  more  than  this  and  wished  to 
build  up  the  power  of  their  order.  It  appears  that  they,  and 
some  other  priests  who  had  followed  the  first  three,  had  early 
acquired  large  holdings  in  Maryland  and  at  the  same  time 
urged  the  old  distinction  between  the  civil  and  the  canon  Canonlaw. 
law,  which  for  centuries  had  obtained  in  Europe,  and  which, 
subjecting  priests  to  the  canon  law  alone,  had  produced 
intolerable  wrongs.  This  same  distinction  the  Maryland 
priests  wished  to  bring  into  the  colony,  and  to  effect  thereby 
a  reference  of  all  cases,  in  which  their  order  might  be  con- 
cerned, to  an  ecclesiastical,  rather  than  a  civil  court.  Prob- 
ably, had  they  not  stirred  in  the  matter,  the  legislature  would 
not  have  acted.  Their  own  persistency  made  clear  to  the 
lawmakers  the  need  of  a  special  bulwark  of  liberty,  such  as 
no  other  colony  enacted.  To  provide  that  bulwark,  this 
Roman  Catholic  legislature  of  1638,  to  the  great  discomfiture 
of  their  own  spiritual  directors,  enacted  that  the  laws  should 
be  "  equally  enforced  against  and  concerning  all  persons,  lay 
and  ecclesiastical,  without  distinction,  exemption,  or  privi- 
lege of  any." 

So  was  established  under  Roman  Catholic  auspices  the 
free  colony  of  Maryland,  without  a  parallel  for  its  idea  of 
religious  liberty  in  all  the  colonies,  except  the  infant  Rhode 
Island.  In  it  the  Roman  Catholics  found  a  secure  asylum, 
and  "Protestants  were  sheltered  from  Protestant  intoler- 
ance." 2  And  there  was  no  hesitation  on  the  part  of  various 
sectaries  to  accept  the  broad  invitation  which  such  a  consti- 
tution made.  Winthrop  notes  in  his  Journal  for  1643  that 

1  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  I,  187-190. 

2  Bancroft,  United  States^  I,  248. 


374 


KISE  OF  EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Protestant 
majority. 


Bennett. 


Baltimore  himself  invited  the  Puritans  of  Massachusetts, 
offering  lands  and  privileges,  with  "full  liberty  of  con- 
science."1 No  records  exist  of  any  emigration  to  Maryland 
from  New  England,  but  the  colony  proved  a  harbor  of  refuge 
to  the  Puritans  of  Virginia,  distressed  by  the  brutal  and 
intolerant  Berkeley. 

The  majority  of  Protestants  over  Romanists,  noted  in  the 
first  company  of  colonists,  steadily  increased.  The  Jesuit 
White  wrote  as  early  as  1641:  "Three  parts  of  the  people 
in  four  at  least  are  heretics."  2  It  is  estimated  that  by  1649 
there  had  come  no  less  than  one  thousand  from  Virginia, 3 
and  among  them  was  Bennett,  the  Puritan  leader,  who  spe- 
cially vexed  the  soul  of  Berkeley.  This  man  in  Maryland  for- 
got all  gratitude  for  the  asylum  afforded  him  and  was  blind 
to  all  decency  of  conduct,  when  he  lent  himself  to  Clayborne 
to  force  the  catastrophe  of  1654.4 

The  population  of  the  colony  thus  became  overwhelmingly 
Protestant.  For  some  reason  Baltimore's  asylum  for  his  co- 
religionists did  not  attract  very  many  of  them  —  a  fact  that 
may  well  seem  strange.  Undoubtedly,  he  supposed  that 
multitudes  of  Romanists  would  flock  to  this  happy  refuge 
from  the  disabling  acts  of  England;  while  for  the  historian 
it  constitutes  something  of  a  surprise  that  so  small  a  number 
of  them  sought  its  freedom  and  relief.  Perhaps,  we  can  find 
no  better  explanation  of  this  fact  than  the  supposition  that 
the  average  Romanist  conscience  refused  to  purchase  peace 
by  tolerating  opposing  faiths,  and  that  the  offence  of  Mary- 
land's religious  freedom  was  greater  than  the  attraction  of  its 
refuge.  But,  however  the  fact  may  be  accounted  for,  the 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  p.  257. 

2  ««  Twenty  Cases."  (Publication  Maryland  Historical  Society.) 
»  Fiske,  Old  Virginia,  I,  312. 

*  Leah  and  Rachel  had  a  suggestion  of  fine  scorn  for  the  baseness  of  the 
conduct  of  this  Bennett  and  his  companions,  saying  that,  "  Maryland  was 
courted  by  them,"  and  that  all  their  requests  for  liberty  of  conscience  and 
other  privileges  were  readily  granted.  We  shall  see  how  unworthy  of  every 
favor  they  proved  themselves  to  be. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  375 

result  of  twenty  years'  colonization  found  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics in  a  hopeless  minority. 

This  disparity  did  not  find  its  counterpart  in  the  official 
bodies  in  the  colony.     Till  1648  Baltimore's  appointments  to 
office  were   almost  invariably  from  among  the   Romanists,  Romanist 
though  it  may  fairly  be  claimed  for  him  that  his  criterion  of  officials- 
selection  was  rather  personal  fitness  than  religion.     A  large 
proportion  also  of  the  legislature  was  of  the  same  faith,  due 
to  the  fact  that  nearly  every  Romanist  was  a  freeman,  while 
only  a  minority  among  the  Protestants  were  possessed  of  the 
franchise. 

Though  in  no  act  of  assembly  or  of  public  officers  was 
there  any  evidence  of  intention  to  interfere  with  the  Protes- 
tants, yet  this  situation  in  itself  gave  rise  to  great  dissatisfac- 
tion among  them.  They  esteemed  it  a  wrong  that  the  majority 
of  the  people  should  be  excluded  from  the  management  of 
public  affairs,  and  they  knew  not  at  what  moment  the  domi- 
nant minority  might  fling  aside  its  professions  of  liberality 
and  proceed  to  oppress  the  Protestant  faith.  At  the  same 
time  the  struggle  in  England  between  king  and  parliament 
found  reflection  in  the  colony,  adding  greatly  to  the  indig- 
enous discontent.  Maryland,  unlike  Virginia,  did  not 
exalt  loyalty  to  the  king.  While  the  colonial  authorities 
took  no  part  against  him,  the  great  Puritan  majority  of 
the  population  were  pronounced  in  their  advocacy  of  his 
opponents. 

In  such  conditions  of  discontent  Baltimore  found  it  advis- 
able to  make  some  changes  to  placate  the  opposition.  To 
this  end  he  remodelled  the  government  in  1648,  by  displacing 
a  majority  of  the  Roman  Catholic  officials  and  appointing 
Protestants  in  their  rooms.  This,  with  an  enlargement  of 
the  franchise,  put  the  local  government  into  Protestant  hands. 
He  even  superseded  his  own  brother,  as  governor,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Protestant  Stone.  In  addition  to  this  change 
in  personnel  he  reappointed  the  oath  of  office,  already  noted, 
with  the  addition  for  the  governor  of  the  words,  "  nor  will  I 


376  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

make  any  difference  of  persons  in  conferring  offices,  rewards, 
or  favors.  .  .  for,  or  in  respect  of,  their  said  Religion."  1 

It  was  deemed  also  advisable  that  the  free  toleration  of  the 
past  should  receive  from  the  local  legislature  an  emphatic  re- 
affirmation.  To  this  end,  and  undoubtedly  at  Baltimore's  sug- 
Act  of  gestion,  the  famous  "  Toleration  Act "  of  1649  found  its  place 
Toleration.  ^  ^Q  statute  book.2  The  act  is  remarkable  both  in  its  form 
and  spirit,  in  its  breadth  and  limitations.  Curiously  enough, 
it  begins  with  its  exceptions ;  ordaining  death  for  blasphemy 
and  the  denial  of  the  Trinity,  and  a  fine  of  <£5  for  speaking 
"  reproachful  words  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  apostles,  or  evan- 
gelists." Then  it  imposes  a  fine  of  ten  shillings  for  calling 
any  person  "by  such  opprobrious  terms  as,  Heretic,  Schis- 
matic, Idolator,  Puritan,  Independent,  Presbyterian,  Popish 
priest,  Jesuit,  Papist,  Lutheran,  Calvinist,  Anabaptist,  Brown- 
ist,  Antinomian,  Barrowist,  Roundhead,  and  Separatist."  Hav- 
ing specified  these  details,  the  act  proceeds :  "  Whereas  the 
enforcing  of  the  conscience  in  matters  of  Religion  hath  fre- 
quently fallen  out  to  be  of  dangerous  consequence  in  those 
commonwealths  where  it  hath  been  practiced,  and  for  the 
more  quiet  and  peaceable  government  of  this  Province,  and 
the  better  to  preserve  mutual  Love  and  amity  amongst  the 
Inhabitants  thereof :  Be  it  therefore  also  by  the  Lord  Propri- 
etary, with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Assembly,  ordered 
and  enacted  (except  as  in  this  present  act  is  before  declared 
and  set  forth)  that  no  person  or  persons  whatever  within  this 
Province,  .  .  .  professing  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  shall 
from  henceforth  be  any  ways  troubled,  molested,  or  discoun- 
tenanced for,  or  in  respect  to,  his  or  her  religion,  nor  in  the 
free  exercise  thereof  within  this  province,  or  the  islands  there- 
unto belonging,  nor  in  any  way  compelled  to  believe  or  exer- 
cise any  other  religion  against  his  or  her  consent,  so  that  they 
be  not  unfaithful  to  the  lord  proprietary,  or  molest  or  con- 
spire against  the  civill  government."  That  the  influence  of 
this  law  might  be  universal  the  legislature  in  1650  prescribed 
1  Foundation  of  Maryland,  pp.  112-114.  2  Acts  of  Assembly,  I,  244. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  377 

"  The  Oath  of  Fidelity  for  every  resident,  in  which  he  was  Oath  of 
made  to  declare  for  Libertie  of  Conscience  in  point  of  Re-  Fidelity- 
ligion  to  himself  and  all  other  persons."  1 

While  the  liberty  confirmed  by  the  statute  was  far  greater 
than  obtained  in  England,  it  was  distinctly  lower  than  that 
of  Rhode  Island.  In  Maryland  only  Trinitarian  Christians 
were  to  be  tolerated.  There  was  no  room  under  the  law  for 
the  Unitarian,  the  Jew,  the  Infidel,  or  the  Pagan.  To  our 
eyes  it  is  narrow,  but  in  the  time  of  its  enactment  it  was  ex- 
ceeding broad  —  far  broader  than  the  great  toleration  act  of 
William  and  Mary,  forty  years  later. 

With  this  condition,  one  would  think,  the  Puritans  of  Mary- 
land ought  to  have  been  satisfied.2  Though  the  powers 
conferred  upon  Baltimore  by  the  charter  were  regal,  the 
proprietary  had  divested  himself  of  many  privileges  and  had 
consented  that  all  the  rights  of  freeborn  Englishmen  should 
belong  to  his  colonists  —  more  rights  indeed  than  they  would 
possess  in  England.  As  enumerated  by  Johnson,3  they  had 
all  the  rights  of  Magna  Oharta :  a  free  legislative  assembly ; 
the  common  law  of  England ;  trial  by  jury ;  taxation  only  by 
act  of  assembly  ;  immunity  from  martial  law,  except  in  camp 
and  garrison ;  equal  taxation  on  all,  and  the  liberty  of  con- 
science. Besides  these  great  concessions,  the  recent  acts  of 
Baltimore  had  put  the  entire  government  in  Protestant  hands, 
with  the  one  exception  of  the  proprietary  himself,  while  he 
had  shown  nothing  but  the  fairest  and  most  liberal  disposi- 
tion toward  the  followers  of  a  faith  different  from  his  own. 
On  the  religious  question  there  was  absolutely  nothing  for  the 
Puritan  to  complain  of.  He  had  entire  freedom  of  conscience 
and  worship,  while  there  was  no  State-Church  and  no  Church- 
rate  compelling  the  support  of  a  religion  he  did  not  own. 

But  this  did  not  satisfy  him.  Like  his  brethren  in  New 
England,  he  considered  himself  alone  entitled  to  liberty.  In 

1  Acts  of  Assembly,  1650. 

2  Leah  and  Rachel ;  Force,  Historical  Tracts, 
8  Foundation  of  Maryland,  p.  148. 


378  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Puritan  Massachusetts  there  was  this  justification  of  Puritan  exclu- 
ingratitude.  sivenesSj  that  the  colony  was  their  own  and  was  founded  with 
the  express  intention  to  build  up  a  commonwealth,  in  which 
a  unity  of  faith  should  be  the  great  pillar  of  the  state.  They 
neither  invited  nor  desired  religionists  of  other  views,  and 
any  person  of  different  persuasion,  entering  the  Bay  colony, 
went  thither  a  conscious  and  unwelcome  intruder.  We  may 
condemn  as  unsound  the  principle  on  which  the  Massachu- 
setts Puritan  moulded  his  state.  We  may  condemn  as  cruel 
the  harshness  of  many  of  his  repressive  acts.  But  we  can 
never  charge  him  with  treachery  or  ingratitude  to  his  bene- 
factor, nor  because  of  the  narrowness  of  his  view  fail  to  see 
the  stern  and  honest  uprightness  of  his  character. 

Far  otherwise  was  it  with  the  Puritan  of  Maryland,  in 
whose  course  there  was  nothing  to  commend  or  excuse  it 
before  the  bar  of  history.  Himself,  equally  with  the  Roman 
Catholic,  the  object  of  harsh  treatment  in  England  and  in 
Virginia,  he  accepted  the  invitation  of  a  Roman  Catholic  to 
an  asylum  of  liberty  for  both.  In  it  he  suffered  no  wrong 
in  his  religious  rights,  and  when  he  complained  that  he  had 
not  the  share  in  governmental  matters,  which  was  appropriate 
to  him,  this  also  was  accorded.  On  which  recognition  and 
with  the  first  taste  of  power,  he  set  himself  to  plot  against  his 
benefactor  and  against  the  religionists  who  had  given  him  a 
home  and  liberty.  He  played  the  part  of  a  viper,  stinging 
the  bosom  that  had  warmed  him,  and  made  the  most  dis- 
graceful chapter  in  the  history  of  Puritanism  and  of  religious 
liberty.1  There  were,  indeed,  political  motives  on  the  part 
of  the  Protestants  in  the  Maryland  broils ;  there  was  jealousy 
of  Baltimore  himself,  though  his  rule  had  been  beneficent 
and  his  policy  was  enlightened;  and  there  was  the  old  quar- 
rel of  Clayborne,  now  exalted  into  a  struggle  for  the  entire 
province.  But  none  of  these  elements  had  any  power  of 
excuse  for  the  conduct  of  the  Puritans  on  the  matter  of 
religion. 

*  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  I,  200. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  879 

Their  opportunity  was  furnished  by  the  triumph  of  the  English 
parliament  in  England.  The  downfall  of  the  king,  to  the  Common- 
minds  of  the  Maryland  malcontents,  seemed  to  require 
the  overthrow  of  the  proprietary.1  Under  the  lead  of 
Clayborne  and  Bennett  the  Puritan  party  in  1652  drove 
out  Governor  Stone  and  took  possession  of  the  government. 
Stone  attempted  armed  resistance,  but  was  defeated  in  pitched 
battle.  The  rights  of  Baltimore  were  ignored.  Ten  commis- 
sioners were  appointed  to  administer  the  government  and  a 
new  assembly  was  called.  This  assembly  at  once  acknowl- 
edged the  Commonwealth  and  the  authority  of  Cromwell, 
without  any  recognition  of  the  proprietary. 

Having  thus  made  a  revolution  in  civil  affairs,  the  Puritan 
party  proceeded  to  reverse  the  colonial  action  in  regard  to  Puritan 
religion.  In  1654  an  act  was  passed  repealing  the  toleration  mtolerance- 
of  1649.2  The  act  explicitly  declared  that,  "  None  who  pro- 
fess the  exercise  of  the  Popish  Religion,  commonly  known  by 
the  name  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion,  can  be  protected 
in  this  Province."  The  law  went  on  to  accord  liberty  of 
dissent  from  the  "  predominant  religion,"  but  it  was  not  to  be 
"  extended  to  popery,  prelacy,  or  licentiousness  of  opinion." 
What  was  intended  by  the  words,  "  the  predominant  religion," 
does  not  clearly  appear,  for  amid  the  variety  of  opinions 
formerly  made  welcome  in  Maryland  no  one  could  be  called 
chief.  The  phrase  suggests  that  the  dream  of  these  conspira- 
tors was  the  establishment  of  a  non-prelatical  Church  on  the 
pattern  of  Massachusetts.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
they  confidently  counted  on  the  approval  of  Cromwell  for 
this  repealing  act.  They  assumed  that  the  protector  would 
sympathize  in  any  effort  to  dispossess  Romanism  and  prelacy.3 
Their  surprise  must  have  been  great  on  receiving  from  Crom-  Cromwell, 
well  a  distinct  disallowance  of  the  act  with  the  command  to  set 
it  aside.  At  the  same  time  Cromwell  commanded  the  com- 

1  Scharf ,  History  of  Maryland,  I,  210-220. 

2  Acts  of  Assembly,  I,  340. 

«  Bancroft,  United  States,  I,  260. 


380 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


missioners  "not  to  busy  themselves  about  religion,  but  to  settle 
the  civil  government."  The  assembly  was  forced  to  repeal  the 
persecuting  act,  and  the  toleration  of  1649  was  left  unchanged. 
But,  though  the  effort  of  the  Puritan  party  was  thus  made  void, 
yet  the  attempt  is  sufficiently  illustrative  of  their  spirit. 

We  need  not  dwell  here  on  the  political  turmoil  which  for 
several  years  disturbed  the  province.  Baltimore  was  restored 
to  his  rights  by  Cromwell,  but  was  met  by  many  petty  revo- 
lutions in  his  province,  with  all  of  which  the  question  of  reli- 
gion was  connected,  but  with  none  in  such  a  way  as  to  cause 
special  change  in  the  religious  history  or  attitude  of  the 
colony.  Meanwhile  there  was  a  steady  increase  of  the  non- 
Catholic  population.  The  emigration  was  of  all  sorts  and 
from  every  clime.  Huguenots,  Dutch,  Germans,  Swedes, 
Finns,  Bohemians,1  all  were  found  in  Maryland.  All  faiths 
were  represented  also,  and  among  them  a  considerable  sprin- 

Quakers.  kling  of  Quakers,  who  were  allowed  full  freedom  of  worship ; 
but  about  forty  of  them  suffered  fines  and  whippings,  because 
of  their  refusal  of  oaths  and  militia  duty.2  So  large  had  the 
disproportion  grown  between  the  Catholic  and  Protestant 
populations  by  1675,  that  the  former  had  sunk  to  a  very  small 
minority.  It  was  estimated  that  not  more  than  one-twelfth 
of  the  people  were  Romanists,  one-sixth  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  three-fourths  "  Puritans."  The  last  must  be 
understood  in  its  broadest  sense  as  including  all  sects  outside 
the  two  Churches  of  Eome  and  England.3 

It  is  not  surprising  that  this  great  disparity  should  accentu- 

Discontent.  ate  a  frequent  discontent  that  a  province  so  peopled  should 
be  in  the  possession  of  a  Roman  Catholic ;  while  the  discon- 
tent was  increased  by  Baltimore's  return  to  the  early  policy 
of  choosing  officials  from  among  men  of  his  own  faith. 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  236. 

2  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X;  "  Church  and  State  in  Maryland."    Indul- 
gence in  regard  to  those  scruples  was  afterward  accorded  to  them  in  1688, 
through  the  intercession  of  William  Penn. 

»  Fiske,  II,  150. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  381 

The  death  of  the  second  Lord  Baltimore  in  1675,  leaving 
title  and  province  to  his  son  Charles,  who  was  of  the  same 
religion  as  his  father  and  continued  his  father's  colonial 
policy,  gave  the  signal  for  new  manifestations  of  opposition. 
There  were  complaints  of  arbitrary  administration,  into  which 
we  need  not  enter.  But  a  large  ground  of  complaint  was  in 
the  religion  of  the  proprietary  and  his  colonial  officers.  This 
complaint  was  almost  entirely  sentimental,  for  it  could  not 
be  shown  that  a  single  Protestant  in  the  province  had  suffered 
in  person  or  fortune  on  account  of  his  religion,  save  in  exclu- 
sion from  colonial  office.  The  complaint,  however,  was  suffi- 
cient to  meet  with  sympathy  in  England,  where  all  Romanists 
were  under  the  ban,  and  the  wretched  Gates  was  turning  the 
cry,  "  No  Popery,"  into  the  absurdest  shriek  of  agony  that 
ever  split  the  air.  Protestantism  in  Maryland  had  become 
political,  and  soon  after  the  accession  of  the  third  Lord  Balti- 
more, the  English  ministry  issued  an  order  to  him  that  all 
offices  of  government  in  the  province  must  be  intrusted 
exclusively  to  Protestants.  "  Thus  were  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics disfranchised  in  the  province  which  they  had  planted." l 

At  the  same  time  a  new  trouble  for  Baltimore  was  being 
prepared  by  the  ambition  of  the  Church  of  England.  The  church  of 
movement  looking  toward  the  establishment  of  that  Church  England, 
in  Maryland  seems  to  have  been  started  by  a  Rev.  Mr.  Yeo, 
laboring  in  the  province,  who  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury a  piteous  appeal  in  1675,  imploring  action  for  the 
establishment  of  the  Church.2  "Here,"  he  wrote,  "are  ten 
or  twelve  counties,  and  in  them  at  least  20,000  souls,  and  but 
three  Protestant  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England.  The 
priests  are  provided  for,  and  the  Quakers  take  care  of  those 
that  are  speakers,  but  no  care  is  taken  to  build  up  Churches 
of  the  Protestant  religion.  The  Lord's  day  is  profaned;  reli- 
gion is  despised,  and  all  notorious  vices  are  commended ;  so 
that  it  has  become  a  Sodom  of  uncleanness  and  a  pest-house 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  242. 

2  Hawks,  Contributions,  II,  49. 


382  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

of  iniquity."  With  such  an  introduction,  Yeo  craves  the 
influence  of  the  archbishop  with  Lord  Baltimore  toward 
"  some  established  support  for  the  ministry  of  the  Church 
of  England." 

This  appeal  was  sent  by  the  archbishop  to  the  king's  minis- 
ters and  by  them  referred  to  the  committee  on  plantations  — 
otherwise  called  the  board  of  trade.  This  body  called  upon 
Lord  Baltimore,  then  in  London,  —  for  Charles,  unlike  his 
father,  spent  much  of  his  life  in  Maryland,  —  for  explanation. 
He  replied,1  that  there  were  four  ministers  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  his  province ;  that  every  one  of  them  had  a  com- 
fortable support ;  that  in  the  previous  year  an  individual  had 
bequeathed  to  the  minister  in  Baltimore  county  five  hundred 
and  fifty  acres,  and  another  had  conveyed  his  personal  estate 
to  St.  Mary's  Church  for  the  maintenance  of  the  ministry ; 
and  that  the  various  religious  tenets  of  the  members  of  the 
assembly  rendered  it  difficult  to  obtain  any  law  establishing 
one  Church. 

The  king's  government  were  not  satisfied  with  Baltimore's 
reply,  and  insisted  that  provision  must  be  made  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  insist- 
ence was  made  more  urgent  by  the  clamors  of  many  high 
officials  in  the  English  Church.  But  the  proprietary  prom- 
ised nothing  and  returned  to  Maryland,  where  he  administered 
the  government  in  person  until  1684. 

In  that  year,  the  last  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  the  con- 
tinuance of  complaints  from  the  Maryland  malcontents  and 
the  threat  of  a  writ  of  quo  warranto  against  his  charter,2  due 
to  the  increased  pressure  of  English  Churchmen  on  the  gov- 
ernment, compelled  him  to  go  to  England  to  defend  his 
rights.  Charles  died  before  any  decisive  action  was  taken, 
and  if  Baltimore  expected  with  confidence  that  the  Romanist 
James  would  protect  him  from  an  unjust  Protestant  clamor, 

1  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X  ;  "  Church  and  State  in  Maryland." 

2  Scharf,  I,   299 ;  Hawks,    Contributions,  II,   50 ;  Anderson,    Colonial 
Church,  II,  617. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  383 

he  was  grievously  disappointed.  The  king,  though  a  bigoted  Treachery 
son  of  Rome,  loved  power  more  than  the  bonds  of  religious  of  James  IL 
brotherhood.  While  he  posed  as  the  grantor  of  religious 
liberty  in  New  York,  he  could  strike  hands  with  its  enemies 
in  Maryland,  though  he  knew  that  the  sufferers  by  the  action 
were  to  be  men  of  his  own  faith.  His  sole  reason  was  jealousy 
of  the  palatine  powers  possessed  by  the  lords  of  Maryland,  for 
the  sake  of  which  jealousy  he  was  willing  to  sacrifice  the 
rights  and  comfort  of  every  Roman  Catholic  in  the  province. 
In  the  whole  story  of  American  colonization  there  is  nothing 
more  preposterous  and  absurd  than  the  outcry  of  lying  Protes- 
tants in  Maryland  to  a  Catholic  king,  and  his  readiness  to 
listen. 

Baltimore  pleaded  that  his  administration  and  that  of  his 
father  had  always  been  in  conformity  with  the  charter  and 
with  the  laws  of  England,  that  he  had  never  failed  to  show 
respect  and  obedience  to  every  royal  demand,  and  that  he  had 
in  no  instance  been  guilty  of  conduct  which  could  incur  the 
pain  of  forfeiture.  The  plea  was  just  and  could  be  borne  out 
by  the  most  scrutinizing  examination  of  his  rule.  But  it 
was  idle  in  the  ears  of  James,  who  gave  orders  for  the  writ, 
which  did  not  come  to  issue  before  the  treacherous  king  was 
himself  thrust  from  power. 

The  fate  of  Baltimore  fell  thus  into  the  hand  of  William,  William  in. 
whose  natural  sense  of  justice  would  have  prompted  a  favor- 
able consideration,  had  the  king  understood  the  situation  fully. 
This,  it  is  safe  to  say,  was  not  the  case.  New  to  the  English 
throne  and  law,  with  many  matters  of  highest  imperial  con- 
cern to  claim  his  study  and  decision,  it  is  not  strange  that 
this  "  Defender  of  Protestantism"  should  have  failed  to  detect 
at  a  glance  that  the  Roman  Catholic  lord  of  a  little  American 
principality  was  belied  by  his  Protestant  subjects.  It  was 
enough  that  the  province  was  in  an  uproar  and  that  the 
Catholic  population  was  an  inconsiderable  minority,  against 
whom  and  the  proprietary  the  Protestant  revolution  in  Mary- 
land was  already  an  accomplished  fact. 


384  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

For  during  the  absence  of  Baltimore  in  England  his  ene- 
mies in  the  province  had  been  busy.1  Scharf  justly  observes 
Puritan  that  "  this  revolution  of  1689  was  the  result  of  a  panic  pro- 
plot,  duced  by  shameful  falsehoods  and  misrepresentations."  At 
the  head  of  it  was  a  man  named  John  Coode,  himself  as  shame- 
ful as  the  lies  which  helped  him  to  his  short  lease  of  power. 
A  frantic  cry  of  "  No  Popery  "  was  raised  to  stir  up  the  peo- 
ple. Stories  were  circulated,  of  a  popish  plot  to  kill  all  the 
Protestants  in  the  province,  and  of  hardships  suffered  by 
Protestants  in  various  parts  of  the  colony  —  not  one  of 
which  was  true.  There  is  not  a  single  recorded  instance  of 
Romanist  violence  against  Protestants  in  the  history  of  the 
province. 

But  the  stories  found  wide  credence,  so  that  the  leaders 
easily  organized  an  "  Association  in  Arms,  for  the  Defence 
of  the  Protestant  religion  and  assisting  the  Rights  of  King 
William  and  Queen  Mary."  The  demonstration  was  too 
forcible  for  resistance  by  the  officials  of  Baltimore,  who  gave 
way  before  it.  Coode  and  his  associates  took  possession  of 
the  government  and  issued  a  proclamation  filled  with  false- 
hoods. It  discoursed  of  "the  injustice  and  tyranny  under 
which  we  groan " ;  declared,  that  "  the  Churches  which 
should  be  consecrated  according  to  the  ecclesiastical  laws  of 
the  kingdom  of  England  have  been  diverted  to  the  use  of 
popish  Idolatry ;  "  that  Protestant  children  had  been  sub- 
jected to  "  forcible  tutelage  in  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  " ; 
that  many  Protestants  had  been  thrown  into  prison  "  by  the 
Papists  " ;  and  that  "  the  priests  and  Jesuits  used  all  means 
that  the  art  of  malice  can  suggest  to  divert  the  loyalty  and 
obedience  of  inhabitants  from  "  William  and  Mary. 

This  proclamation  was  designed  to  do  its  chief  work  in 
England,  and  was  accompanied  across  the  sea  by  an  address 
to  the  king  and  queen  from  Coode,  who  extolled  his  own 
efforts  to  have  their  majesties  proclaimed  in  the  province, 
complained  that  Baltimore  had  failed  to  cause  such  proclama- 

i  Scharf,  I,  306-336 ;  Hawks,  II,  55-63 ;  Anderson,  II,  618. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  385 

tion,  and  besought  the  royal  aid  toward  the  advancement  of 
the  Protestant  religion. 

Coode  also  called  an  assembly,  to  which  no  Romanist  was  Coode's 
to  be  admitted.  To  this  assembly  the  freeholders  of  Cal-  assembly- 
vert  county,  headed  by  Sheriff  Taney,  refused  to  send  dele- 
gates, embodying  their  reasons  in  a  public  declaration.  For 
this  act  of  independence  Taney  was  put  in  jail.  Neither  this 
assembly  nor  one  called  in  the  next  year,  1690,  made  any 
attempt  to  settle  the  civil  government.  The  minds  of  the 
members  seemed  completely  filled  by  their  frantic  hatred  of 
Roman  Catholics.  They  kept  dinning  the  king's  ears  with 
their  insane  bellowings.  From  six  counties  went  as  many 
addresses  to  the  king,  numerously  signed,  craving  "  deliver- 
ance of  your  suffering  people,  whereby  our  Religious  Rights 
and  Liberties  may  be  secured  under  a  Protestant  Govern- 
ment." These  were  answered  by  five  other  addresses,  as 
numerously  signed  by  both  Protestants  and  Romanists,  deny- 
ing the  statements  of  the  former.  There  is  no  room  for 
wonder  that  the  English  government  was  disposed  to  put 
an  end  to  such  a  state  of  things  by  assuming  direct  control 
of  the  province ;  and  all  the  more  that  no  adequate  demon- 
strations were  at  hand  of  the  baseless  nature  of  the  Protestant 
complaints. 

Charles  Carroll,  one  of  the  most  prominent  citizens  of  the 
colony,  wrote  to  Baltimore  of  "this  strange  rebellion  of  your 
ungrateful  people,  at  the  wicked  instigation  of  Coode,  Jowles," 
and  others,  "profligate  wretches  and  men  of  scandalous 
lives."  But,  while  this  testimony  goes  far  in  a  later  genera- 
tion to  discredit  the  conspiracy,  the  religion  of  its  author 
was  enough  to  prejudice  the  English  authorities  against  his 
cause.  The  outcome  of  the  turmoil  was  that  William 
voided  the  charter,  dispossessed  Baltimore,  and  took  over  the  Charter 
government  of  Maryland  as  a  royal  province. 

There  is  some  satisfaction  for  the  sense  of  historic  justice 
in  noting  that  the  leaders  in  this  "  strange  rebellion,"  though 
they  effected  their  aim  against  Lord  Baltimore,  yet  did  not 

2c 


386 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Church  of 

England 

established. 


Religious 
condition. 


gain  for  themselves  the  prizes  they  sought.  The  government 
was  not  committed  to  them,  and  Coode  especially  was  left 
entirely  without  any  marks  of  the  king's  favor.1  He  dropped 
out  of  sight  for  a  while,  and  then  reappeared  in  holy  orders, 
was  notorious  for  scandalous  conduct,  was  tried  by  a  civil 
court  for  blasphemy,  and  fled  the  province.2 

The  final  act  of  William  in  revoking  the  charter  of  Mary- 
land took  place  in  1692,  when  the  king  sent  over  Governor 
Copley  to  the  province.  Copley  was  an  ardent  Church  of 
England  man,3  and  brought  with  him  several  clergymen  to 
aid  in  settling  that  Church  in  the  colony.  Soon  after  arrival 
the  governor  summoned  an  assembly,  which  with  great  zeal 
and  promptness  passed  "  An  Act  for  the  service  of  Almighty 
God  and  the  Establishment  of  the  Protestant  Religion  within 
this  province."4  By  this  act  the  Church  of  England  was 
made  the  State-Church  of  Maryland;  the  justices  in  each 
county  were  directed  to  lay  out  the  county  in  parishes; 
the  freeholders  in  each  parish  were  to  choose  the  vestry; 
Churches  and  chapels  were  ordered  to  be  built ;  and  a  tax 
of  forty  pounds  of  tobacco  was  laid  on  "  each  taxable  Person  " 
for  the  support  of  the  clergy. 

If  we  are  to  believe  contemporary  reports,  we  must  con- 
clude that  the  religious  condition  of  the  day  was  deplorable.5 
One  writer  —  probably  one  of  the  clergymen  who  came  over 
with  Copley  —  wrote:  "There  is  scarce  any  protestant 
minister  in  Maryland.  Now  and  then  an  itinerant  minister 
came  over  of  very  loose  morals  and  scandalous  behaviour,  so 

1  Scharf ,  I,  309,  note  ;  Hawks,  II,  63. 

2  Hawks  very  aptly  cites  this  career  of  Coode  as  "  affording  a  striking  il- 
lustration of  the  facility  with  which  in  that  day  vice,  that  deserved  a  prison, 
could  .figure  in  these  unfortunate  colonies  in  the  robes  of  a  priest.    It  hap- 
pened in  the  times  when  too  many  thought  that  any  one  would  suffice  to 
serve  the  Church  in  America,  and  when  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  an  Eng- 
lish clergyman  to  come  to  the  American  plantations  was  not  infrequently 
viewed  as  presumptive  evidence  against  his  character." 

8  Hawks,  II,  65. 

*  Scharf,  I,  343,  363,  365 ;  Acts  of  Assembly,  IV,  425. 

*  Hawks,  II,  76. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  387 

that,  what  with  such  men's  ill  examples,  the  Romish  priests' 
cunning,  and  the  quakers'  bigotry,  religion  was  in  a  manner 
turned  out  of  doors."  The  clergy  also  sent  to  the  bishop  of 
London  a  statement  of  a  similar  tenor.  It  declares  that  there 
were  but  three  clergymen  in  the  province  before  the  gov- 
ernor's coming,  and  continued,  "There  was  also  a  sort  of 
wandering  pretenders  to  preaching,  that  came  from  New 
England  and  other  places ;  who  deluded  not  only  the  prot- 
estant  dissenters  from  our  Church,  but  many  of  the  Churchmen 
themselves,  by  their  extraordinary  prayings  and  preachments, 
for  which  they  were  admired  by  the  people,  and  got  money 
of  them." 

The  act  of  establishment  was  a  distinct  loss  to  the  cause 
of  freedom  in  Maryland,  not  alone  for  its  institution  of  a 
State-Church,  but  for  its  bringing  in  the  proscriptions  of  the  Proscrip- 
English  toleration  act.  The  liberty  allowed  by  that  act  was  tions- 
far  less  than  that  of  the  Maryland  law  of  1649.  The  Roman 
Catholic  founders  of  the  colony  were  put  under  the  ban, 
and  could  indulge  in  the  public  exercise  of  their  religion 
only  at  the  risk  of  fine  and  imprisonment.  Even  domestic 
and  private  devotions  were  made  causes  for  hostile  remark. 
Besides  this  oppression  of  the  Romanist,  the  non-episcopal 
worship  of  Protestants  could  be  exercised  only  upon  suffer- 
ance, while  every  Protestant,  not  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
England,  was  compelled  to  support  a  Church  not  his  own. 

This  makes  the  course  of  the  Maryland  Puritans  all  the 
more  notable.  Their  lying  clamor  against  a  "Popish  tyr- 
rany,"  which  did  not  exist,  fettered  the  religious  liberty  they 
already  possessed.  Either  their  Puritan  bigotry  against  the 
Church  of  Rome  made  them  blind  to  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
sequences for  themselves ;  or  their  affectation  of  a  Puritan 
character  was  a  mere  cloak  to  cover  political  malice,  indif- 
ferent to  the  religious  result.  The  latter  supposition  is  by 
far  the  more  just,  both  from  their  unscrupulous  methods  of 
attack,  and  the  readiness  with  which  they  accepted  a  prelati- 
cal  establishment.  No  genuine  Puritanism  would  have  sub- 


388  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

mitted  to  the  Anglican  burden  without  a  struggle,  second 
only  to  its  resistance  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  so  far 
as  the  Maryland  Puritans  were  concerned,  we  read  of  no 
objection  to  the  establishment.  On  the  contrary  they  wel- 
comed it,  as  though  it  had  been  a  deliverer,  and  promptly 
established  it  themselves.  The  only  protest  came  from  the 
Quakers,  who  sent  a  deputation  to  England  and  petitioned 
the  assembly,  seeking  relief  from  Church  taxation  as  "a  bur- 
den to  their  consciences  and  estates."  But  the  assembly 
turned  a  deaf  ear,  and  in  England  the  remonstrances  of  the 
Anglican  clergy  hindered  a  favorable  response. 

Immediately  that  the  Church  of  England  came  to  its  estab- 
lishment in  Maryland,  it  began  the  same  course  of  vexations 
Non-con-  toward  non-conformists,  which  distinguished  it  in  Virginia 
formity.  an(^  ~^QW  YQ^  jn  1594  Nicholson  succeeded  Copley  and 
showed  his  zeal  in  much  harsh  treatment,  especially  of  the 
Quakers.1  Various  efforts  were  made  to  increase  and  extend 
the  power  of  the  Church.2  In  1696  the  assembly  passed  a 
new  act  of  establishment  with  enlarged  powers  and  recit- 
ing :  "  That  his  Majesty's  subjects  of  this  province  shall 
enjoy  all  their  rights  and  liberties  according  to  the  laws  and 
statutes  of  the  kingdom  of  England,  in  all  matters  and 
causes  where  the  laws  of  the  province  are  silent."  Against 
the  act  the  Quakers  and  Romanists  protested,  sending  an 
agent  to  London,  and  it  was  disallowed  by  the  king  in  coun- 
cil, because  of  the  clause  above  quoted,  "  which  clause  is  of 
another  nature  than  that  which  is  set  forth  by  the  title  to  the 
said  law." 

Again  the  Church  party  in  1700  attempted  its  purpose  by 
a  law,  enacting:  "That  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and 
the  administration  of  the  Sacraments,  with  the  rites  and 
services  of  the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church 
of  England,  the  Psalter  and  Psalms  of  David,  and  morning 
and  evening  prayer,  therein  contained,  be  solemnly  read  by 

1  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  622. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  630-631;  Hawks,  II,  88,  89,  97,  116. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  389 

all  and  every  minister  or  reader  in  every  Church,  or  other  place 
of  public  worship,  within  this  province."  This  act  was  also 
disallowed  by  the  king,  on  the  ground  that  the  phrase,  "  other 
place  of  public  worship,"  infringed  the  act  of  toleration. 

Still  another  bill  was  drawn  up  by  Commissary  Thomas 
Bray,  approved  by  the  board  of  trade,  sent  to  Maryland, 
passed  by  the  assembly  in  1700  and  approved  by  the  king.  Act  of  1700. 
By  this  act  the  Church  was  finally  settled.  In  brief,  the 
act  provided  that  every  minister  of  the  Church  should  be 
inducted  by  the  governor,  and  should  receive  forty  pounds 
of  tobacco  per  poll  in  his  parish,  and  out  of  this  income  should 
pay  to  his  clerk  one  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  yearly.  The 
sheriffs  were  to  collect  the  stipends.  The  vestries,  over  which 
the  minister  was  to  preside,  were  to  keep  the  Church  property 
in  repair,  meeting  the  expense  thereof  by  the  fines  under  the 
act.  If  these  fines  were  insufficient,  they  were  empowered 
to  lay  a  tax  not  exceeding  ten  pounds  of  tobacco  per  poll 
yearly.  The  toleration  acts  of  England  were  extended  to 
Protestant  dissenters  and  Quakers,  who  were  permitted  to 
have  meeting-houses,  provided  the  same  were  certified  to,  and 
registered  by,  the  county  courts. 

Thus  did  free  Maryland  pass  under  bondage.  The  Puritan 
exchanged  his  liberty  for  a  grudging  and  burdensome  tolera- 
tion, while  the  Romanist  found  himself  locked  out  of  his  own 
home.  The  situation  makes  a  curious  reverse,  the  like  of 
which  is  not  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  colonies.  Not 
the  least  curious  and  expressive  feature  of  the  change  is  the 
provision  that  repairs  on  property  should  be  defrayed  by  the 
fines  under  the  act,  in  its  very  best  light  a  provision  distinctly 
immoral.  The  act  turns  a  perfectly  innocent  thing  —  non- 
conformist worship  —  into  a  crime,  calculates  that  there  will 
be  many  violations  of  the  statute,  and  plans  to  raise  a  revenue 
out  of  the  crime  which  itself  creates.  It  was  no  less  shameful 
than  oppressive. 

We  must  not  fail  to  note  that  the  author  of  the  bill  finally  Bray. 
settling  the  Church  came  with  it  into  Maryland.     Though 


390 


KISE  OF  EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


evidently,  from  the  character  of  the  measure  drafted  by  him, 
a  man  of  very  narrow  religious  prejudices,  yet  Bray  was  in 
all  other  respects  worthy  of  the  highest  commendation  —  a 
gentleman,  a  scholar,  of  purest  personal  character,  and  of 
unwearied  devotion  and  Christian  zeal.  Before  coming  to 
America  he  had  given  evidence  of  his  capacity  in  founding 
and  organizing  the  two  great  English  societies,  for  the  " Pro- 
motion of  Christian  Knowledge,"  and  for  the  "  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts."  Chosen  by  the  bishop  of 
London  as  his  commissary  to  the  Church  of  Maryland,  he  was 
a  worthy  companion  to  James  Blair  in  Virginia.  The  two 
men  stood  head  and  shoulders  above  all  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ministers  in  America  since  the  day  of  Whitaker,  the 
"apostle  to  Virginia."  Bray  spent  many  years  in  Maryland, 
for  a  long  time  the  only  sweet  savor  in  its  Church,  laboring 
with  much  toil,  amid  countless  discouragements,  but  with 
intelligent  and  unflagging  zeal.  "  He  gave  nearly  all  of  his 
earnings  to  the  advancement  of  religion  and  the  Church  in 
these  colonies."  1 

Bray's  chief  sources  of  trouble  were  the  character  of  most 
of  the  clergy,  and  the  governor's  power  of  induction  to 
parishes.  Bray's  own  hand  in  England,  taught  by  English 
custom,  had  put  that  power  in  the  bill  of  establishment.  But 
he  found  on  acquaintance  with  American  conditions  that  it 
was  fatal  to  the  Church.  The  two  evils  worked  together,  for 
the  unsavory  reputation  of  the  ministry  was  not  to  be  sweet- 
ened by  an  irreligious  governor's  appointment  of  favorites  to 
parishes.  All  records  agree  in  representing  the  majority  of 
The  clergy,  the  Maryland  clergy  on  the  same  low  level  with  their 
brethren  in  Virginia,  serving  in  one  province  as  in  the  other 
to  nurture  resentment,  not  only  against  the  Church  itself,  but 
also  against  the  royal  authority,  which  forced  an  establish- 
ment with  such  a  ministry  upon  an  unwilling  people. 

We  have  already  noted  the  effect  of  this  scandal  in  Vir- 
ginia.    In  Maryland  it  was  no  less  glaring  and  disabling  to 
i  Hawks,  II,  79  ;  Anderson,  II,  623. 


Bray's 
troubles. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  391 

the  Church,  and  the  popular  outcry  against  it  was  no  less 
strident.  The  letters  of  the  few  godly  men  among  the  clergy 
to  the  society  and  the  bishop  of  London l  abound  in  references 
to  it  and  its  terribly  disastrous  influence  on  the  Church.  At 
nearly  every  opening  of  Perry's  invaluable  compilation  the 
reader  will  find  some  allusion.  The  constant  appeal  is  for 
better  men  to  be  sent  from  England  and  for  a  bishop,  the 
superior  need  of  whose  presence  is  the  function  of  discipline 
to  correct  the  irregularities  of  the  clergy.  Dr.  Hawks 2 
remarks  with  sharpness  upon  the  lamentable  condition,  that 
while  Churchmen  were  forcing  their  unwelcome  Church  on 
the  people  and  "punishing  men  for  non-conformity,  they 
should  not  have  illustrated  their  own  orthodoxy  by  a  con- 
sistent Christian  life." 

The  outcry  against  clerical  indecencies  became  so  strenu- 
ous that  in  1708  an  act  was  passed  by  the  legislature  creat- 
ing a  special  court  for  the  trial  of  derelict  ministers.3  The 
governor  and  three  other  laymen  were  to  constitute  the  court. 
To  such  a  court,  from  which  all  clerical  membership  was  care- 
fully excluded,  was  committed  the  highest  functions  of  spir- 
itual authority,  the  power  to  both  deprive  a  culprit  of  his 
parish  and  depose  him  from  the  ministry.4  This  court,  in- 
deed, was  never  organized,  as  the  governor,  though  in  sympathy 
with  the  object  of  the  act,  declined  to  assent  on  the  ground 
that  he  had  received  no  instructions  from  the  king  covering 
such  a  measure.  The  assembly  declared  its  intention  to  per- 
sist in  action  at  every  session.  The  clergy  became  alarmed 
and  sent  a  remonstrance  to  the  bishop  of  London,  imploring 
his  influence,  and  describing  the  measure  as  "  an  establish- 
ment of  Presbyterians."  Whether  by  the  bishop's  influence  or 
other  does  not  appear,  yet  the  attempt  to  constitute  so  anoma- 
lous an  ecclesiastical  court  was  not  continued.  Its  chief 

1  Bishop  Perry,  Historical  Collections  (Maryland). 

2  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  II,  128. 
8  Anderson,  III,  283. 

*  This  resembles  the  action  of  the  Carolina  legislature  in  1704. 


392 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Induction. 


Restoration 
of  Balti- 
more. 


value  in  this  narrative  is  to  illustrate  the  relation  which  the 
civil  power  considered  itself  to  occupy  toward  the  Church. 

It  found  another  illustration,  sixty-two  years  later  (1770), 
in  a  revival  of  the  effort  to  form  a  court  with  spiritual  juris- 
diction. This  new  attempt  proposed  a  body  composed  of  the 
governor,  three  ministers,  and  three  laymen,  the  six  associ- 
ates to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  himself.  The  bill  passed 
the  legislature,  but  Governor  Sharp  refused  assent  on  the 
ground  that  it  conflicted  with  the  principles  of  the  Church  of 
England.1  The  evil  at  which  the  bill  was  aimed,  although  the 
general  character  of  the  clergy  slowly  improved,  continued 
to  plague  the  Church  down  to  the  Revolution.  Bray  wore 
himself  out  in  contending  against  it,  and  Henderson,  his  suc- 
cessor in  the  commissaryship,  found  a  no  less  discouraging 
and  impossible  task.2 

Both  of  them  attributed  a  great  part  of  their  difficulty  to 
the  governor's  power  of  presentation  and  induction,  against 
which  there  existed  no  appeal  in  law.  No  power  could  reach 
a  minister  whom  the  governor's  favor  protected,  no  matter 
how  shameful  his  conduct.  Even  the  power  which  conferred 
the  benefice  could  not  withdraw  it,  and  the  governor  himself 
could  not  remove  a  minister,  who  had  disgraced  his  appoint- 
ment.3 Bray  sought  to  have  the  right  of  induction  vested  in 
the  commissary,  as  the  official  representative  of  the  bishop  of 
London,  but  was  unsuccessful.  The  power  was  too  valuable 
for  the  governor  to  relinquish. 

So  thought  also  the  Baltimores  when  they  came  to  their 
own  again.  In  1715  Charles,  third  Lord  Baltimore,  died  in 
England,  after  many  ineffectual  appeals  for  the  restoration  of 
his  proprietary  rights,  always  denied  on  the  ground  of  his  re- 
ligion.4 His  son  Benedict,  the  fourth  Maryland  palatine, 
turned  Protestant  and  was  rewarded  by  George  I.  with  a  re- 
newal of  his  patent.  With  his  conversion  to  Protestantism, 
—  a  change  undoubtedly  dictated  by  policy  rather  than  by 


1  Hawks,  II,  257. 

2  Anderson,  III,  295. 


8  Ibid.,  Ill,  281. 
4  Scharf,  I,  378. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  393 

religious  convictions,  —  he  imbibed  all  the  narrow  prejudices 
and  arrogancies  which  distinguished  the  attitude  of  the  Church 
of  England  toward  all  other  religionists.  To  this  somewhat 
degenerate  scion  of  the  noble  Roman  Catholic  house,  which 
established  religious  freedom  in  Maryland,  the  right  of  pat- 
ronage in  the  Church  appeared  no  less  valuable  than  to  the 
royal  governors.  He  clung  to  it  with  persistent  tenacity  and 
would  tolerate  no  interference  with  his  ecclesiastical  power. 

He  wrote  to  the  bishop  of  London  in  1718,  with  the  ardor 
of  a  neophyte  :  "  I  have  nothing  more  at  heart  than  the  Prot- 
estant establishment,  and  I  will  do  all  that  in  me  lies  to 
encourage  and  favor  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  estab- 
lished." 1  At  the  same  time  he  was  very  unwilling  to  yield  an 
iota  of  his  rights  as  patron  throughout  the  entire  province, 
using  them  many  times  to  the  manifest  disadvantage  of  the 
Church  which  he  professed  to  love.  The  Rev.  T.  Bacon,  who 
deplored  the  condition  of  the  Church,  wrote  in  1750  to  the 
bishop  of  London :  "  Lord  Baltimore  appoints  all  the  clergy, 
and  will  not  consult  either  with  the  bishop  of  London  or  the 
society."2  And  fourteen  years  later,  Dr.  Chandler,  writing  to 
the  bishop  a  report  of  a  recent  tour  among  the  Churches  of 
Maryland,  said :  "  The  inhabitants  look  upon  themselves  to 
be  in  a  state  of  the  most  cruel  oppression  with  regard  to  eccle- 
siastical matters.  The  Churches  are  built  and  liberally  en- 
dowed entirely  at  their  expense ;  yet  the  proprietor  claims  the 
sole  right  of  patronage,  and  causes  induction  to  be  made  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  opinions  of  parishioners.  Those  who 
are  inducted  are  frequently  known  to  be  bad  men  even  at  the 
very  time,  and  others  soon  show  themselves  to  be  so.  After 
induction  they  cannot  be  removed,  even  by  the  highest  exer- 
tion of  proprietary  power."  3 

Baltimore  was  unwilling  that  the  clergy  should  meet  to- 
gether to  consult  on  Church  affairs,  or  to  concert  any  meas- 
ures looking  to  relief  from  their  burdens.  About  1730  the 

1  Perry,  Historical  Collections  (Maryland),  p.  99. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  326.  8  Hawks,  II,  249. 


394 


RISE  Otf  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY1 


Offer  of 
suffragan. 


Stipends. 


bishop  of  London,  moved  by  the  constant  complaints  from 
Maryland,  and  giving  way  to  a  surprising  impulse  of  depar- 
ture from  the  usual  English  policy,  invited  the  provincial 
clergy  to  choose  one  of  their  own  number  to  go  over  to  Eng- 
land and  be  consecrated  as  suffragan.  The  clergy  met  and 
selected  a  Mr.  Colebatch  for  this  episcopal  dignity,  but,  when 
he  attempted  to  leave  Maryland  for  consecration,  he  was  for- 
bidden by  the  government,  which  at  the  same  time  rebuked 
the  clergy  for  their  action.1  Thirty  years  later  the  clergy 
renewed  their  effort  for  a  bishop,  and  met  a  similar  rebuke. 
Governor  Eden,  the  last  of  the  proprietary  governors,  had 
come  over  in  1769,  and  brought  a  command  from  Baltimore 
that  the  clergy  should  not  be  allowed  to  meet  in  convention 
about  Church  affairs.  Meanwhile  they  had  met  and  adopted 
a  petition  for  a  bishop,  which  they  commended  to  the  gov- 
ernor's influence  to  obtain  a  favorable  answer.  "  The  only 
answer  received  was  that  of  rebuke  and  insult.  Never  were 
they  to  presume  to  meet  again.  .  .  .  The  governor  told  them 
that  the  parishes  in  Maryland  were  all  Donatives,  and  there- 
fore beyond  any  control  which  a  bishop  could  exercise."  2 

Thus  it  became  clear  that  there  was  not  much  more  free- 
dom for  the  established  Church  of  Maryland  than  those  of 
non-conformists.  Its  clergy  were  indeed  stipendiaries  of  the 
state,  and  in  the  matter  of  support  were  much  better  placed 
than  other  ministers.  But  in  regard  to  the  stipend  they  were 
subjected  to  vexations,  for  which  their  own  irregular  con- 
duct was  chiefly  responsible.3  There  was  a  struggle  of  many 
years'  duration  between  them  and  the  legislature.  That 
body  in  1763,  "disgusted  and  wearied  by  the  continued 
irregularities  of  the  great  mass  of  the  clergy,"  passed  an  act 
reducing  the  ministerial  stipend  by  one-fourth.  Such  a 
reduction  no  body  of  men  would  be  apt  to  view  with  equa- 
nimity, and  the  Maryland  clergy  were  in  arms  at  once,  the 
more  clamorous  as  their  character  prevented  their  vision  of 
anything  beside  their  selfish  interest.  It  was  at  the  same 
1  Anderson,  III,  295.  2  Ibid.,  Ill,  309.  8  Ibid.,  Ill,  308-311. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  395 

time  with  the  famous  "  Parsons'  Cause  "  in  Virginia,  and  the 
public  distress,  which  gave  rise  to  the  Virginia  action,  was 
also  felt  in  Maryland  as  a  justification,  added  to  their  disgust 
for  the  act  of  the  legislature.  There  was  no  great  trial  and 
judicial  decision  of  the  question  in  a  Maryland  court,  until 
after  1770,  but  the  war  of  words  was  bitter  and  long. 

Indeed,  there  was  not  at  first  much  room  for  appeal  to 
the  courts.  The  Maryland  legislators  were  wiser  than  the 
burgesses  of  Virginia.  The  latter  left  the  stipends  at  the  old 
figure,  and,  to  the  prejudice  of  all  creditors,  fixed  the  price 
of  tobacco  used  in  paying  debts  at  less  than  one -third  of  the 
true  value.  The  Maryland  method  was  both  more  direct 
and  thoroughly  within  the  power  of  the  legislature.  With- 
out attempting  to  meddle  with  prices,  the  power  which  had 
fixed  the  stipend  simply  reduced  it.  But  we  cannot  affect 
much  sympathy  with  the  clergy,  for,  though  their  income 
was  reduced,  their  support  was  well  assured.  They  were 
not,  as  many  of  their  brethren  in  Virginia,  brought  into 
grinding  poverty  by  the  blow.  Anderson  wrote  of  them : 
"  The  position  of  every  clergyman  in  Maryland  was  far  better 
than  that  of  their  brethren  in  any  other  colony.  Their  com- 
plaining alienated  sympathy."1  Dr.  Chandler,  in  his  letter 
of  1764  to  the  bishop  of  London,  alluding  to  the  clerical 
complaints,  wrote:  "The  livings  generally  are  worth  .£300, 
some  of  them  £500.  Very  few  are  so  low  as  £200."  2  It  is 
quite  impossible  to  seriously  pity  men  thus  situated,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that,  even  if  we  suppose  Dr.  Chandler's  figures  to 
represent  the  stipends  before  the  reduction,  yet  the  reduction 
left  the  lowest  stipend  at  an  amount  higher  than  the  average 
ministerial  salary  in  this  country  to-day  (1901),  while  the 
purchasing  power  of  money,  as  related  to  the  needs  of  life, 
is  now  much  less  than  in  colonial  times. 

This  trouble  about  the  stipends  took  another  form  in  1770. 
3  In  that  year  the  legislature  neglected  to  continue  the  re- 
duction act  of  1763,  a  neglect  which  the  governor  attempted 

1  Anderson,  in,  307.  2  Hawks,  II,  249.  *  Ibid.,  II,  264-281. 


396  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

to  correct  by  a  proclamation,  directing  the  sheriffs  to  collect 
the  ministers'  salaries  at  the  new  rate  of  thirty  pounds  of 
tobacco  per  poll.  This  action  of  the  governor  was  condemned 
by  some  of  the  people  as  an  usurpation  of  power,  while 
the  clergy  contended  that  the  legislative  neglect,  through  the 
expiration  of  the  law  of  1763,  revived  that  section  of  the 
establishing  act  which  assessed  forty  pounds  of  tobacco  per 
poll  for  the  parsons'  stipends. 

But  this  contention  of  the  clergy  referring  to  the  establish- 
ing act  set  another  party,  opposed  to  the  Church,  to  ques- 
tioning the  legality  of  the  act  itself.  Though  the  act  was 
introduced  in  1700,  final  action  was  not  concluded  until  two 
years  later,  and  the  act  was  spoken  of  as  the  "  Act  of  1702." 
The  contention  of  this  party  was,  that  the  act  of  1702  was 
passed  on  March  16  ;  that  King  William  died  on  March  8 ; 
that  the  authority  of  the  legislature  elected  on  the  king's 
writs  expired  with  his  life ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  act  of 
1702  was  invalid,  and  the  Church  of  England  had  never  been 
established  in  Maryland ! 

Here  then  was  a  triangular  contest  in  which  both  Church- 
men and  non-conformists  were  engaged.  The  controversy 
is  known  as  that  of  "  The  Proclamation  and  Vestry  Act," 
and  was  never  adjusted,  save  as  the  Revolution  put  an  end 
to  it  and  its  cause.  During  its  discussion  much  and  bitter 
strife  raged.  In  many  instances  people  refused  to  pay  under 
the  act  of  1702,  and  the  clergy  entered  suits  to  recover,  on 
which  the  decision  of  the  courts  was  against  them.  The 
legislature  of  1773  reenacted  the  provision  of  reduced  sti- 
pends, but,  in  order  not  to  pre-judge  the  case  of  the  establish- 
ment, expressly  provided  that  this  action  should  have  no 
influence  in  determining  the  validity  of  the  law  of  1702, 
which  must  be  left  for  future  legal  decision.  As  Dr.  Hawks 
tersely  observes,  "  The  American  Revolution  settled  it  with- 
out the  intervention  of  judge  or  jury."  Certainly,  the  con- 
troversy can  be  regarded  as  a  prelude  to  that  Revolution  and 
with  much  of  its  animating  spirit.  In  Maryland,  as  in  Vir- 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  397 

ginia,  the  downfall  of  the  establishment  "found  few  to  weep 
over  its  dishonored  corpse."1 

It  remains  to  note  the  action  of  the  government  toward 
non-conformists  after  the  establishment  of  1702.  I  have  Non-con- 
found  no  records  of  severe  persecution  of  persons  of  any  formists- 
faith,  though  the  earlier  years  of  the  establishment  were  full 
of  annoyance.  The  majority  of  the  population  was  so  over- 
whelmingly non-episcopal  —  Baptist,  Presbyterian,  Hugue- 
not, Methodist,  German  Reformed  —  that  the  legislature 
never  ventured  to  interfere  with  their  right  of  worship, 
though  compelling  their  contributions  to  the  support  of  the 
established  Church.  The  Quakers  and  Roman  Catholics 
were  the  special  objects  of  animosity,  and  of  these  the 
former  found  early  relief  from  trouble. 

There  had  come  into  the  province  many  of  the  sect,  who  Quakers, 
increased  in  number  constantly.  It  has  been  noted  that  in 
1688  they  obtained  consideration  for  their  scruples  concern- 
ing militia  duty.  In  1704  the  legislature  explicitly  conceded 
their  rights  to  toleration.  Twenty  years  after,  1724,  the 
Quakers  having  been  subjected  to  great  indignity  by  turbu- 
lent disturbance  of  their  meetings,  a  law  was  passed  to  punish 
such  offences,  and  also  to  admit  a  Quaker's  affirmation  in 
place  of  an  oath. 

The  lot  of  the  Romanists  was  much  more  vexatious.  They  Komanists. 
were  not  driven  out  of  the  province ;  they  were  not  im- 
prisoned or  beaten.  But  they  were  deprived  of  all  civil 
rights,  prohibited  the  free  exercise  of  their  worship,  and 
fined  on  any  violation  of  the  narrowing  laws.  Some  of  the 
legislation  evinces  a  peculiar  malignity  of  spirit  against  them. 
Thus,  the  law  of  1704,  "  An  Act  to  Prevent  the  Growth  of 
Popery,"  forbade  a  "  popish  bishop  or  priest "  to  exercise  his 
functions  in  any  public  service,  under  a  penalty  of  £50  fine, 
or  six  months'  imprisonment.  If  one,  once  convicted,  should 
be  guilty  of  a  second  offence,  he  was  to  be  sent  to  England 
for  punishment.2  The  only  service  permitted  to  the  Romanist 

*  Hawks,  II,  117,  174.  2  Scharf,  I,  369,  370 ;  Hawks,  II,  117,  142. 


398  RISE  OF  EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

was  within  the  limits  of  a  "  private  family  of  the  Romish  com- 
munion." The  same  act  laid  a  tax  of  twenty  shillings  on 
every  Irish  servant  imported,  to  "prevent  the  entrance  of 
papists."  This  provision  was  renewed  in  1714  ;  a  fine  of  <£5 
was  imposed  for  concealing  such  importation,  and  certain 
oaths  were  ordered  for  persons  on  incoming  ships,  to  discover 
their  religious  opinions.  In  1715  it  was  enacted  that  children 
of  a  Protestant  father  and  Roman  Catholic  mother,  could, 
in  case  of  the  father's  death,  be  taken  from  the  mother.  In 
case  a  son  in  a  Romanist  family  became  a  Protestant,  the 
father  lost  control  of  him  and  must  be  compelled  to  support 
him.  The  act  of  1716  required  the  oath  of  abjuration  for  all 
persons  elected  to  office  ;  and  that  of  1718  denied  the  ballot 
to  Romanists  unless  they  abjured  their  faith. 

It  is  pleasant  to  note  that,  despite  the  virulence  of  these 
acts,  there  was  little  force  to  execute  them.  They  were  chiefly 
sound  and  fury,  and  this  Protestant  bigotry  was  very  like 
"  Pope  and  Pagan  "  in  Bunyan's  tale,  too  stiff  in  the  joints  to 
run  after  the  people  at  which  they  snarled.  The  Roman 
Catholics,  beyond  the  things  noted,  suffered  no  great  hard- 
ships and  no  personal  persecutions.  The  fact  was  that,  with 
all  the  loud  professions  of  Protestant  zeal  on  the  part  of  the 
leaders,  there  was  too  much  love  for  liberty  in  the  land  to 
countenance  severity.  Though  his  brethren  suffered  in  some 
measure,  yet  the  seed  sown  by  Baltimore  had  not  fallen  on 
entirely  barren  ground.  The  heart  and  head  of  the  people  at 
large  were  sounder  than  those  of  the  government.  Presently, 
the  Roman  Catholics  were  able  unchallenged  to  assume  their 
rights,  and  though  the  colonial  legislature  never  repealed 
these  oppressive  laws,  they  were  able  in  1763  to  build  their 
first  Church  in  Baltimore  without  opposition.1 

So  must  end  the  peculiar  tale  of  colonial  Maryland  in  its 
relation  to  religious  freedom.  We  shall  find  her  well  pre- 
pared to  take  her  place  in  the  company  of  states  which  de- 
clared liberty  to  every  soul. 

i  Hawks,  II,  246. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  399 


III.   New  Jersey 

Under  the  rule  of  New  Netherland  the  same  relation 
between  civil  and  ecclesiastical  affairs  was  supposed  to  obtain 
in  New  Jersey  as  we  have  already  noted  in  Dutch  New  York. 
The  early  occupation  of  its  territory  has  left  permanent  monu- 
ments of  Dutch  influence  in  the  many  Reformed  Churches 
which  flourish  in  that  state.  But  beyond  an  occasional  and 
unimportant  note  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Dutch  authori- 
ties at  New  Amsterdam  concerned  themselves  to  any  great 
extent  about  Church  affairs  in  their  dominions  west  of  the 
Hudson.  Even  the  settlement  of  Quakers  in  that  part  of  his 
government  did  not  stir  the  fiery  spirit  of  Stuyvesant. 

Thus  our  story  of  New  Jersey  must  begin  with  the  English 
conquest  of  1664.  At  that  time  the  Dutch  had  made  settle- 
ments on  the  North  and  South  (Delaware)  rivers,  and  in  one 
or  two  localities  in  the  interior.  Newark  also  had  just  been  Newark, 
founded  by  Pierson  and  his  Branford  flock,  who,  resenting 
the  "  Christless  rule  "  of  Connecticut,  essayed  a  "  new  ark  " 
of  that  covenant,  which  defined  all  civil  rights  as  the  perqui- 
sites of  religion  alone.  They  began  with  the  foundation  laid 
at  New  Haven,  the  fundamental  rule  of  Church  membership 
as  a  condition  for  the  franchise  and  for  office ;  and  through 
their  influence  the  first  colonial  assembly,  meeting  at  Eliza- 
beth town  in  1668,  "transferred  the  chief  features  of  the  New 
England  codes  to  the  statute  book  of  New  Jersey."1 

But  the  impress  of  such  restrictive  legislation  was  transient. 
Its  bands  were  sundered  almost  so  soon  as  they  were  knit, 
through  the  influx  of  an  incoming  population  over  which  the 
extreme  Puritanism  of  New  Haven  could  exercise  little  con- 
trol. Into  the  country  between  the  Hudson  and  the  Dela- 
ware there  came  a  steady  stream  of  people  not  in  sympathy 
with  this  ideal  of  a  "godly  government,"  men  who  had 
struggled  and  suffered  for  the  rights  of  conscience  and  of 
1  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  II,  318. 


400  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

man.  Scotch  Presbyterians  sought  in  the  Jerseys  a  refuge 
from  the  persecutions  of  Charles.  Quakers  fled  thither  from 
the  hostile  atmosphere  of  England  and  New  England.  The 
original  Dutch  settlers  remained  to  assert  continually  the 
freedom  which  the  Reformed  faith  inculcated.  All  together 
made  conditions  too  strong  for  narrow  Puritanism  to  success- 
fully resist. 

There  was  also  arrayed  against  it  the  explicit  "  concession  " 
of  the  proprietaries,  which,  after  the  manner  of  a  fundamental 
law,  guaranteed  a  complete  religious  freedom.  These  pro- 
prietaries were  Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret.  On 
the  conquest  of  New  Netherland  Charles  gave  the  entire 
province  to  his  brother  James,  the  duke  of  York.  In  expec- 
tation of  this  gift,  James  had  already  bargained  with  Berkeley 
and  Carteret  —  who  were  also  of  the  Carolina  proprietaries  — 
for  the  southern  portion  of  the  territory  which  was  west  of  the 
Hudson.  At  the  fulfilment  of  this  bargain  the  new  owners  of 
the  province  were  ready  with  their  plans  for  the  settlement  of 
their  colony,  and  at  once  published  a  scheme,  embodying  cer- 
The  con-  tain  principles  and  stipulations,  which  they  called  "  Conces- 
cessions.  Si0ns," l  and  by  which  they  desired  to  attract  settlers. 

The  seventh  concession  ran :  "  No  person  .  .  .  shall  be  any 
ways  molested,  punished,  disquieted,  or  called  in  question  in 
matters  of  religious  concernments,  who  do  not  actually  dis- 
turb the  civil  peace  of  the  province ;  but  all  and  every  such 
person,  or  persons,  may  .  .  .  freely  and  fully  have  and  enjoy  his 
and  their  judgments  and  consciences  in  matters  of  religion 
throughout  the  province." 

This  concession  does  not  in  words  refer  to  civil  rights,  but 
it  was  understood,  as  now,  that  such  language  involved  an 
entire  absence  of  discrimination  as  to  civil  rights  because  of 
religion.  To  so  discriminate,  whatever  might  be  the  amount 
of  civil  rights  possessed  by  any  portion  of  the  community, 
would  be  to  "punish  and  call  in  question"  for  religious 
reasons  the  excluded  portion  of  the  people. 

1  Samuel  Smith,  History  of  New  Jersey,  p.  513. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  401 

With  the  reconquest  of  New  York  by  the  English  began 
a  new  movement  in  the  history  of  New  Jersey.1    Lord  Berke- 
ley, who  was  old  and  wished  to  rid  himself  of  care,  sold  the 
western  half  of  the  province,  for  a  thousand  pounds,  to  John  Quaker 
Fenwick  and  Edward  Byllinge,  men  of  prominence  among  Purchase- 
the  English  Quakers.     With  these  two  William  Penn,  Gawen 
Laurie,  and   Nicholas   Lucas   soon   became   associated,  and 
these  Quaker  proprietaries,  desiring  not  only  a  place  of  asy- 
lum for  their  co-religionists  but  also  a  territory  for  their  own 
government,  easily  made  an  agreement  with  Carteret  for  the 
division  of  the  province.     Thus  New  Jersey  became  "The  "The 
Jerseys,"  a  term  which  has  lasted  in  common  speech  down  Jersey8-" 
to  this  day,  though  the  two  provinces  were  reunited  by  royal 
decree  in  1702.2 

The  Quaker  proprietaries  of  West  Jersey  wrote  to  those  West 
of  their  faith,  who  had  already  settled  in  the  province :  "  The    ersey' 
CONCESSIONS  are  such  as  Friends  approve  of  ...     We  lay 
a  foundation   for  after  ages  to  understand  their  liberty  as 
Christians  and  as  men,  that  they  may  not  be  brought  into 
bondage,    but    by  their   own   consent;    for  we    put    THE 
POWER  IN  THE  PEOPLE."     This  purchase  and  declaration 
were  made  in  1676,  and  in  the  following  year  was  published 
the  fundamental   agreement  of  the  proprietaries  as  to   the 
conduct  of  government  in  West  Jersey.3 

This  agreement  —  expanding  the  terms  of  the  former  con- 
cession—declared:   "No   men,   nor   number  of  men   upon 
earth,  hath  power  or  authority  to  rule  over  men's  consciences  Freedom  of 
in  religious  matters ;  therefore,  it  is  consented,  agreed,  and  c 
ordained,  that  no  person  or  persons  whatsoever  within  the 
said  province,  at  any  time  or  times  hereafter,  shall  be  any 
ways,   upon   any   pretense  whatsoever,   called  in   question, 
or  in  the  least  punished  or  hurt,  either  in  person,  estate,  or 
privilege,  for  the   sake  of  his  opinion,  judgment,  faith,  or 
worship  towards  God  in  matters  of  religion ;  but  that  all  and 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  II,  355-357. 

2  Ibid.,  Ill,  48.        8  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  529. 

2D 


402  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

every  such  person  and  persons  may,  from  time  to  time  and 
at  all  times,  freely  and  fully  have  and  enjoy  his  and  their 
judgments  and  the  exercise  of  their  consciences  in  matters 
of  religious  worship  throughout  all  the  said  province." 

In  perfect  consistency  with  this  ordination  of  liberty,  the 
first  assembly  of  West  Jersey,  in  1681,  reiterated  its  principle, 
formulated  it  in  a  colonial  law,  and  extended  its  specific 

Civil  rights,  terms  to  matters  of  civil  right.1  This  law  declared :  "  Lib- 
erty of  conscience  in  matters  of  faith  and  worship  shall  be 
granted  to  all  people  within  this  Province,  who  shall  live 
peaceably  and  quietly  therein,  and  none  of  the  free  people  of 
the  Province  shall  be  rendered  incapable  of  office  in  respect 
to  their  faith  and  worship." 

With  so  broad  a  platform  of  freedom  West  Jersey  imme- 
diately became  as  a  promised  land  to  the  followers  of  Fox, 
who  emigrated  from  England  in  large  numbers,  and  whose 
firm  adhesion  to  the  principles  of  freedom  made  much  trouble 
for  the  royal  governors  and  the  Church  of  England  party, 
after  the  reunion  of  the  Jerseys. 

East  Jersey.  Meanwhile  East  Jersey  had  received  large  numbers  of  the 
Scotch,  who  brought  with  them  their  Presbyterian  faith  and 
worship.  It  was  not  a  hopeful  outlook  for  the  Church  of 
England  men,  who  labored  hard  to  establish  dominance  of 
their  own  faith.  Bray,  the  commissary  to  Maryland,  com- 
plained :  "  The  whole  territory  is  under  Presbyterian  or 
Quaker  influence.  They  are  left  to  themselves  without  priest 
or  altar."2 

East  Jersey  was  not  so  liberal  as  the  Quakers  in  the  west. 
At  first,  in  1683,  the  assembly  reiterated  the  language  of  the 

Limitation.  "  Concession,"  but  in  1698  limited  the  liberty  of  consciences 
to  persons  "  acknowledgeing  one  Almighty  and  Eternal  God, 
and  professing  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  3  This  was  undoubtedly 
due  to  the  influence  of  a  rigid  Scotch  religionism,  with  which 

1  Smith,  pp.  128,  576. 

2  Anderson,  History  Colonial  Church,  II,  662. 

8  Smith,  New  Jersey,  p.  271 ;  Kent,  Commentaries. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  403 

the  sturdy  Dutch  may  have  been  not  entirely  out  of  sympathy. 
The  influence  of  the  feeling  seems  to  have  asserted  itself  even 
in  West  Jersey,  where  in  1693  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the 
assembly  against  non-believers  in  the  Trinity,  which  appears 
however  to  have  failed  of  passage.1 

The  attempt  was  a  departure  from  Quaker  principle,  and 
it  is  to  be  set  to  the  credit  of  West  Jersey  that  the  effort 
failed ;  and  all  the  more  honorable,  in  that  the  colony  of  Penn 
across  the  Delaware  had  been  guilty  of  as  signal  departure,  in 
making  belief  in  God  and  Christ  a  condition  of  citizenship. 
This  condition  was  imposed,  as  will  be  seen,  at  the  beginning 
of  Pennsylvania  and  may  have  been  among  the  reasons  for 
the  West  Jersey  attempt.  These  facts  constitute  the  only 
blot  on  Quaker  championship  of  religious  freedom,  for  with 
these  exceptions  it  can  be  noted  as  the  peculiar  glory  of  the 
Quakers,  among  the  sects  of  that  age,  that  they  remembered 
in  the  day  of  triumph  the  principle  of  liberty  professed  by 
them  in  times  of  persecution. 

A  much  more  pleasing  illustration  of  the  spirit  in  West 
Jersey  is  found  in  a  letter  from  the  proprietaries  in  London 
to  the  Rev.  Thomas  Bridges,  a  minister  of  the  Church  of 
England  resident  in  Bermuda.2  Mr.  Bridges  had  written  in 
1692,  expressing  his  desire  to  settle  in  West  Jersey,  and  to 
him  the  proprietaries  declared  themselves  pleased  at  the 
prospect  of  obtaining  for  their  colony  his  "  religious  and  civil 
influence";  and  continued,  "You  may  in  what  situation  you 
please  take  up  Two  Thousand  Acres,  one  Thousand  to  be 
your  own  in  fee  forever,  the  other  to  be  annexed  unto  your 
office  and  descend  unto  him  who  shall  succeed  you."  The 
governor,  Daniel  Coxe,  also  wrote  to  Mr.  Bridges,  "  You  will 
be  rewarded  with  ...  the  Love  and  Esteeme  of  those  who 
shall  voluntarily  come  under  your  Pastoral  care,  with  due 
maintenance :  Together  with  Civill  and  Christian  Respects 
from  others  of  different  perswations."  3 

1  Smith,  p.  417.  2  New  Jersey  Archives,  II,  94. 

,  II,  96. 


404  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Political  affairs  in  both  Jerseys  were  in  a  chronic  state  of 
Political  turmoil,  unmixed  with  questions  about  religion  or  Church, 
turmoil.  *  gave  jn  so  far  as  a  bitter  jealousy  of  Quaker  influence  asserted 
itself  in  the  quarrels  and  disputes.  The  people  of  both  colo- 
nies were  also  jealous  of  the  proprietaries  and  unwilling  to 
submit  to  their  requirements,  and  made  so  much  resistance 
that  the  proprietaries  grew  weary  of  their  troubled  govern- 
ment. In  1699  the  proprietaries  of  East  Jersey  offered  to 
surrender  their  charter  to  the  crown,  that  their  territory 
might  be  combined  with  New  York  under  one  provincial 
government.  The  offer  was  made  with  certain  conditions, 
of  which  one  was  the  following : l  — 

"X.  No  Person  or  Persons  whatsoever  to  be  molested 
or  deprived  of  any  civil  Right  or  Privilege;  or  rendered 
uncapable  of  holding  any  Office  or  Employment  in  the 
Government  because  of  their  religious  Principles ;  the 
Province  being  planted  by  Protestant  People  of  divers 
Perswasions,  to  whom  that  Liberty  was  an  original  en- 
couragement." 

Two  years  afterward,  the  two  colonies  united  in  a  joint 

petition  to   the   king   to   be    taken   under   the   immediate 

Government  government  of  the  crown.     Among  the  proposed  conditions 

crown.  Was  I  — 

"  XII.  That  all  Protestants  may  be  exempt  from  all  penal 
Laws  relating  to  Religion,  and  be  capable  of  being  of  the  Gov- 
ernor's Council  and  of  holding  any  other  Publick  Office, 
though  they  do  not  conform  to  the  discipline  of  the  Church 
of  England,  or  scruple  to  take  an  Oath."  2  The  peculiar  form 
of  this  condition  indicates  the  special  influences  under  which 
it  was  drawn.  The  toleration  act  of  1689  excluded  from  pub- 
lic office  all  non-conformists,  hampering  them  with  many 
other  disabilities.  In  a  province  wherein  dissenters  were  al- 
most the  entire  population,  and  no  Church  had  yet  been 
organized  of  the  English  communion,  it  was  needful  that  the 
rights  of  dissent  should  be  clearly  acknowledged.  Besides 
i  Archives,  II,  296.  2  Ibidmj  II?  404. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  405 

this,  in  view  of  the  fraudulent  claim  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  established  in  New  York  by  the  Act  of  1693,  the 
prospect  of  being  united  to  New  York  made  it  the  more  nec- 
essary to  protect  the  non-conforming  Jerseymen. 

At  the  same  time  the  influence  of  the  toleration  of  William 
is  seen  in  the  specific  reference  to  "  Protestants  "  in  the  pro- 
posed condition.  This  made  a  distinctly  backward  step  in 
New  Jersey,  which  hitherto  had  made  no  discrimination 
against  Romanists.  But  in  applying  to  the  king  for  a  direct  Romanists, 
royal  government,  it  seems  to  have  been  taken  for  granted, 
that  the  liberty  demanded  must  stop  short  of  protecting  those 
whose  religion  was  a  crime  under  English  law.  It  does  not 
appear  that  Jersey  authorities  had  ever  come  into  contact 
with  Roman  Catholic  demands,  or  that  any  of  the  Roman 
faith  had  ever  proposed  to  settle  in  the  colony.  We  may 
consider  it,  therefore,  as  probable  that  this  specifying  of  Prot- 
estants was  rather  for  conformity  of  phrase  to  the  English 
statute,  than  for  any  hostility  to  Roman  Catholics. 

The  offer  and  petition  were  made  to  William  III.,  but  were 
not  acted  upon  before  his  death,  being  left  for  the  disposition 
of  his  successor.  Among  the  earlier  actions  of  Anne's  reign  Anne, 
was  the  assumption  of  the  Jersey  government.  This  took 
place  in  1702 :  the  charters  of  both  Jerseys  were  surrendered 
and  annulled;  the  united  province  was  received  under  the 
direct  government  of  the  crown  and  joined  to  that  of  New 
York,  to  which  joint  government  the  queen  sent  its  first  gov- 
ernor in  the  person  of  her  cousin,  Edward  Hyde,  Lord  Corn- 
bury,  than  whom  never  was  there  in  the  province  another 
"  governor  so  universally  detested,  nor  that  so  richly  deserved 
the  public  abhorrence."  l 

But   the   order  in  council,  assuming   the   government  of 
New  Jersey,  made  no  allusion  to  the  petitioners'  conditions, 
though  the  substance  of  them  found  place  in  the  queen's  in-  instruc- 
structions  to  Cornbury,  in  which  no  distinction  was  made  be-  tlons' 
tween  New  York  or  New  Jersey.     This  instrument,  in  regard 
i  Wm.  Smith,  History  of  New  York,  I,  194. 


406  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

to  liberty  of  religion,  used  the  stereotyped  form  constantly 
repeated  to  every  governor :  "  You  are  to  permit  a  liberty  of 
conscience  to  all  persons  (except  papists),  so  they  may  be 
contented  with  a  quiet  and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the  same, 
not  giving  offence  or  scandal  to  the  government."1  The 
instructions  also  provided  for  a  Quaker's  affirmation  in  place 
of  an  oath. 

The  other  items  of  the  instructions  referring  to  religion 
proceed  upon  the  supposition,  either  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land had  already  been  established  in  New  Jersey,  or  that  it 
could  be  established  by  force  of  the  instructions  themselves. 
We  have  already  exhibited  the  character  of  the  famous 
"  Ministry  Act "  of  1693  in  New  York,  carefully  drawn  by 
Church  of  the  legislature  to  avoid  recognition  of  the  Church  of  England, 
England.  an(j  ve£  af fcerward  always  referred  to  by  governors,  the  home 
government,  and  Episcopalians  as  having  formally  established 
that  Church.  The  act  was  passed  nine  years  before  the  ap- 
pointment of  Cornbury  to  the  joint  government  of  the  two 
provinces,  and  his  instructions  seem  to  assume  that  the  gov- 
ernmental union  had  carried  that  act  over  into  New  Jersey. 
It  is  but  another  illustration  of  the  fraudulent  dealing  of 
which  the  act  was  the  occasion  ;  for,  as  already  shown,  its 
establishment  was  designed  to  affect  only  six  towns  in  the 
entire  province  of  New  York. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  possible  that,  without  regard  to  the 
New  York  act,  the  home  government  considered  itself  compe- 
tent to  establish  the  Church  of  England  in  New  Jersey  by  royal 
decree ;  as  though  the  colony,  which  had  sought  the  direct 
government  of  the  crown,  must  accept  the  queen's  pleasure 
in  things  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil.  Thus  in  a  province, 
which  did  not  possess  a  single  Church  of  the  English  com- 
munion, the  governor  is  vested  with  ecclesiastical  authority.2 
"We.  .  .  authorize  and  empower  you  to  collate  any  per- 
son, or  persons,  to  any  Churches,  Chappells,  or  other  Eccle- 
siastical Benefices  within  Our  said  Province,  as  often  as 
i  Archives,  II,  622.  2  Ibid>j  n>  496j  628,  529. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  407 

any  of  them  shall  happen  to  be  voyd.  .  .  .  You  shall  take 
special  care  that  God  Almighty  be  devoutly  and  duly  served 
throughout  your  government,  the  book  of  common  prayer,  as 
by  law  established,  read  each  Sunday  and  holy  day,  and  the 
blessed  Sacrament  be  administered  according  to  the  rites  of 
the  Church  of  England."  The  governor  was  also  charged 
with  a  care  for  Church  buildings  and  the  support  of  minis- 
ters ;  to  induct  no  man  without  a  certificate  from  the  bishop 
of  London ;  to  remove  any  scandalous  minister ;  to  constitute 
ministers  members  of  their  own  vestries;  and  to  report  to 
the  bishop  of  London,  as  having  colonial  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction. 

The  really  absurd  thing  about  these  instructions  is,  that 
the  Churches  of  New  Jersey  were  all  of  other  than  the  Angli- 
can communion,  and  the  explanation  of  their  purpose  is, 
either  the  intent  to  dragoon  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian 
Churches  into  conformity,  or  to  confer  power  over  such  Epis- 
copal Churches  as  might  thereafter  be  organized ;  while  be- 
hind it  all  is  the  evident  thought  that  the  royal  authority 
carried  the  Church  of  England  into  the  province.  It  is  only 
thus  that  we  can  understand  the  phrase,  "  as  by  law  estab- 
lished." The  book  of  common  prayer  and  the  Anglican 
Church  were  established  by  law  in  England,  but  the  only 
possible  way  of  using  those  words  with  reference  to  New  Jer- 
sey was  with  the  idea  that  English  Ecclesiastical  law  covered 
all  parts  of  English  dominion  —  an  idea  very  easily  demon- 
strable as  incorrect. 

For  in  no  other  colony  had  this  general  dominion  been 
thought  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of  the  Church.  The 
Virginia  Church  was  established  by  the  colonial  assembly; 
that  in  Carolina  by  the  charter.  The  royal  authority  never 
affected  such  power  in  New  England  or  Pennsylvania ;  and 
in  New  York  the  angry  struggle  between  Fletcher  and  the 
assembly  was  based  on  the  understanding  that  an  act  of  the 
colonial  legislature  was  necessary  for  establishment.  The 
only  other  colony,  which  bears  any  resemblance  in  this  re- 


408  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

spect  to  New  Jersey,  is  Maryland.     But  in  Maryland,  when 
William  assumed  the  direct  government  of  the  province,  the 
establishment  of  the  Church,  attempted  by  a  specific  and  de- 
tailed order  of  the  king  and  queen  in  council  having  all  the 
force  and  effect  of  a  charter,  was  supplemented  by  an  act  of 
the  colonial  legislature.     In  New  Jersey  the  peculiar  situa- 
Church         tion  was  that  no  such  order  was  made,  and  that  the  establish- 
Hshed  intab"  ment  was  simply  taken  for  granted  without  any  law  or  decree 
New  Jersey,  on  which   to  base   it.     The  colonial   legislature   had  never 
enacted  such  a  law,  nor  did  it  afterward  supply  the  defi- 
ciency.    Bancroft l  speaks  of  the  Church  of  England  as  estab- 
lished in  New  Jersey  in  1702,  but  the  only  ground  for  the 
statement  is   in  Cornbury's   instructions,   which  in   reality 
assume  that  which  was  not  true. 

The  whole  treatment  of  the  question  has  been  misleading, 
for  in  point  of  fact  the  Church  of  England  never  was  estab- 
lished in  New  Jersey  by  either  crown  or  legislature.  The 
contrary  claim  has  not  even  so  much  reason  as  that  for  the 
establishment  in  New  York.  In  both  colonies  the  subsequent 
incessant  claims  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  and  the  English 
authorities  to  the  privileges  of  establishment  involved  a 
perversion  of  the  fact.  This  perversion  was  specially 
gross  in  New  Jersey  for  the  reason  that,  unlike  New  York, 
there  was  no  legislative  act  whatever  to  furnish  a  ground 
for  it. 

The  absence  of  an  ecclesiastical  statute  was  a  sore  grievance 
and  conscious  weakness  to  the  Church  of  England  party. 
Occasionally  a  complaint  of  it  was  expressed  very  plainly. 
Thus  the  Rev.  Jacob  Henderson,  a  missionary  of  the  Propa- 
gation Society,  bitterly  contrasted  the  condition  of  the  Church 
in  New  Jersey  with  that  in  New  York.2  Writing  in  1712  he 
said:  "There  are  two  Acts  of  Assembly  for  establishing  the 
Church  of  England  in  New  York,  and  ministers  of  the  Church 
of  England  have  always  had  the  six  Churches  in  New  York. 

1  History  of  United  States,  III,  48. 

2  Archives,  IV,  165-161 ;  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  V,  334. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  409 

(Both  of  which  statements  were  mistakes.)  But  in  New 
Jersey  there  are  no  laws  in  favor  of  the  Church  and  but  four 
ministers  of  the  Church  of  England." l 

The  absence  of  such  law,  as  of  any  subsequent  attempt  to 
supply  one,  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  religious  sentiment 
of  the  people,  so  adverse  to  the  idea  of  establishment  as  to 
make  even  Cornbury  sensible  that  no  ecclesiastical  statute  Cornbury. 
was  immediately  possible.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  essayed 
any  direct  struggle  on  the  question,  and  certainly  did  not 
venture  on  any  so  high-handed  proceedings  as  those  which 
characterized  his  administration  in  New  York.  He  interested 
himself  for  the  Church  so  far  as  he  was  able,  endeavored 
unsuccessfully  to  institute  the  tithe,  and  reported  at  one  time 
with  some  elation,  "  There  is  a  Church  at  Burlington  which 
I  have  named  St.  Ann's."  2  But  beyond  occasional  annoy- 
ance of  no  great  moment  his  powers  were  limited  by  the 
overwhelming  popular  temper.  Even  his  turbulent  spirit 
dared  not  to  openly  grapple  with  the  anti-prelatical  sentiment 
of  Quaker  and  Presbyterian. 

The  Quakers,  indeed,  furnished  him  and  other  governors  Quaker 
material  for  much  thought  and  countless  complaints.     Their  party§ 
numbers  and  the  tenacity  of  their  opinions  in  opposition  to 
oaths,  militia  duty,  and  tithes  brought  an  immense  amount 
of  turmoil  into  New  Jersey.     Before  any  hope  could  exist  for 
a  Church  establishment  the  Quakers  must  first  be  disfran- 
chised and  silenced.     The  question  resulted  in  a  passionate 
political  struggle,  but  behind  it  were  the  religious  scruples  of 

1  In  this  letter  Henderson  assailed  Colonel  Morris,  the  most  prominent 
citizen  of  New  Jersey,  as  **  a  professed  Churchman,  but  a  man  of  noe  manner 
of  principles  or  credit,  who  calls  the  service  of  the  Church  of  England  a 
Pageantry,  who  has  Joyned  in  endeavors  to  settle  a  conventicle  in  New  York 
City."     (This  probably  refers  to  Morris's  approval  of  the  movement  to  incor- 
porate the  Presbyterian  Church.)     To  this  letter  Morris,  paying  no  attention 
to  the  attack  on  himself,  triumphantly  replied,  "  He  complains  that  there  are 
no  laws  in  favor  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Jerseys,  which  is  granted. 
But  does  he  know  of  any  Law  in  favor  of  any  other  Keligion  ?  " 

2  Archives,  III,  107. 


410  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  Quakers  and  the  ambition  of  the  English  Churchmen. 
Cornbury  wrote  to  the  board  of  trade,1  1705,  "  The  Quakers 
are  pretty  numerous  in  this  division  (West  Jersey),  and  in 
the  time  of  the  Proprietary  Government  they  had  all  the 
power  in  there,  and  used  it  very  arbitrarily."  Part  of  the 
reason  for  the  governor's  animus  is  shown  in  a  previous 
letter:2  "The  Quakers  bragged  that  there  should  be  no 
Revenue 3  settled,  that  the  Queen  had  sent  them  a  Governor, 
but  they  would  keep  him  poor  enough  :  these  and  such  like 
reports  were  spread  about,  not  by  the  meanest  men  among 
them,  but  by  the  topping  leading  Quakers." 

4  Another  indication  of  the  spirit  of  the  struggle  is  in  a 
memorial  to  the  board  of  trade  by  three  prominent  leaders  of 
the  anti-Quaker  party,  Coxe,  Dockura,  and  Sonmans,  all  of 
whom  at  different  times  stood  high  in  the  government.  They 
petitioned  for  an  order  from  England  excluding  Quakers  from 
membership  in  the  council  and  assembly.  Among  their 
reasons  were :  — 

"1.  The  Quakers  were  opposed  to  a  militia  and  to 
revenue. 

"2.  So  long  as  they  are  in  places  of  power,  they  awe 
and  frighten  many  .  .  .  who  would  otherwise  leave 
that  perswasion  and  come  over  to  the  Christian 
Church. 

"  3.  Because,  refusing  to  pay  Tythes  on  pretence  of  Con- 
science, they  will  consequently  oppose  and  obstruct 
the  passage  of  any  Act  in  favor  of  the  said  Church, 
or  its  settlement. 

"  4.  Quakers  were  not  admitted  to  office  in  England  or  else- 
where, save  in  Pennsylvania." 

1  Archives,  III,  106. 

2  iud.,  Ill,  70. 

8  This  meant  salary  for  the  governor.  As  other  colonies,  New  Jersey  did 
her  best  to  starve  out  the  royal  governors.  The  quarrel  was  chronic  and  uni- 
versal. 

*  Archives,  III,  82. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  411 

5.   Lord  Cornbury  had  rightly  construed  one  section  of  his 
instructions  as  admitting  Quakers  to  public  office, 
and   this   view  the   memorialists  said  "manifestly 
appears  to  be  as  false  as  'tis  scandalous.  .  .  .     We 
hope  therefore  that  the  Quakers  may  be  excluded  Quakers  in 
from  the  Council,  the  General  Assembly,  and  all  office> 
other  places  of  publick  trust  in  the  Province."    This 
clearly  reveals  the  motive  of  some  of  those  opposed 
to  the  Quakers,  to  remove  an  obstacle  to  a  Church 
establishment. 

Cornbury  also,  though  forced  to  act  according  to  instruc- 
tions, yet  evidently  did  not  like  this  admission  of  Quakers. 
In  a  letter  of  1704  to  the  board  of  trade l  he  complained  of 
them  as  obstructing  the  courts  by  their  refusing  oaths,  and 
concluded :  "  I  think  it  would  be  much  more  for  the  service 
of  the  queen  that  none  should  be  admitted  into  employments, 
but  those  who  are  willing  to  take  the  oaths." 

The  hard  fact  for  Cornbury  and  the  Church  party  to  face 
was  that  the  Quakers  held  either  the  majority  or  the  balance 
of  power,  at  different  times,  in  the  legislature.  West  Jersey 
sent  in  1705  a  delegation  entirely  Quaker,  save  for  one  mem- 
ber ;  and  Lord  Cornbury  wrote :  "  Soe  long  as  the  Quakers 
are  allowed  to  be  chosen  into  the  Assembly,  the  service  of  the 
Queen  and  the  business  of  the  country  must  wait  upon  their 
humors."2  Indeed,  as  time  went  on,  the  governor  became 
more  and  more  disgusted  with  the  situation.  The  "  topping 
Quakers  "  were  ever  a  burden.  His  letters  abound  in  flings 
and  complaints.  "  I  have  not  suffered  any  Quakers  to  have 
any  Office  in  the  Government  of  New  York,"  but  in  New 
Jersey,  under  the  queen's  commands,  "  I  have  put  severall  of 
them  into  employments;  but  I  have  always  found  them 
obstinate,  unwilling  to  be  ruled,  never  forwarding  but  still 
interrupting  business :  What  Quakers  would  be,  had  they  the 
Power  in  their  hands,  and  which  they  are  very  fond  of, 

i  Archives,  III,  66.  2  Ibid.,  Ill,  114. 


412 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Refuse  to 
defend  the 
colony. 


Colonel 
Quary. 


appears  very  plainly  in  the  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  where 
noe  Man  can  tell  what  is  his  own  or  how  to  get  what  is  Justly 
his  due."  i 

Undoubtedly  the  Quakers  were  in  many  things  very  aggra- 
vating. Their  placid  and  quiet  obstructiveness  was  more 
exasperating  than  a  violent  opposition.  But  they  were 
clearly  within  their  rights,  facing  a  determined  effort  to 
debar  them  from  all  civil  privileges.  Save  for  their  conduct 
in  regard  to  the  governor's  support,  in  which  matter  they  had 
sympathizers  in  every  non-Quaker  assembly  on  the  continent, 
and  in  their  refusal  to  provide  for  the  defence  of  the  country, 
it  is  impossible  to  find  just  cause  for  blame.  It  was  within 
the  province  of  a  good  citizen  to  choose  between  militia  duty 
and  a  fine  for  refusal  of  it.  But  one  cannot  so  easily  excuse 
the  action  of  the  New  Jersey  Quakers  in  regard  to  the  war 
with  Canada  and  the  Indians  in  1709.  The  governor  desired 
troops  and  money,  that  the  colony  might  do  its  part  in  the 
general  defence ;  and  the  assembly,  a  majority  of  which  were 
Quakers,  passed  the  following  resolution : 2  "  The  members 
of  this  House,  being  the  People  called  Quakers,  have  always 
been,  and  still  are,  for  Raising  money  for  support  of  Her 
Majties  Government :  but  to  raise  money  for  Raising  of  Sol- 
diers is  against  their  Religious  Principles,  and  for  Conscience 
cannot  agree  thereto."  One  cannot  excuse  that  attitude  any 
more  than  the  conduct  of  the  Pennsylvania  legislature,  fifty 
years  later,  in  refusing  protection  to  the  settlers  in  the  west- 
ern counties. 

There  was,  then,  this  amount  of  justice  in  the  attacks  upon 
the  Quakers.  To  some  extent  it  justified  the  strictness  of 
Colonel  Quary,  inspector  for  the  board  of  trade  in  the  middle 
colonies,  who  wrote  in  1708 :3  "They  are  driving  at  the 
same  game  acted  in  Pennsylvania  by  their  Friends  there,  who 
are  resolved  to  allow  no  prerogative  of  the  Crown,  nor  any 
power  in  a  Governor,  but  will  have  all  power  lodged  in  them- 
selves. .  .  .  This  growing  evil  and  mischief  requires  a 

1  Archives,  III,  229.         2  Ibid.,  Ill,  470.         « Ibid.t  III,  273. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  413 

speedy  remedy,  else  I  fear  it  will  spread  over  the  whole  con- 
tinent." It  gives  some  justice  also  to  the  language  of  Lieu- 
tenant Governor  Ingoldsby  in  1709,1  who  attributed  the 
unhappy  state  of  the  province  to  "  the  Prevalence  of  a  Sort 
of  People  amongst  us,  who,  though  not  above  one  Sixth  part 
of  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Province,  yet  by  a  Peculiar  Address 
and  a  Religious  Cunning  Influence  too  many  well-meaning 
Men  with  most  Ridiculous  and  Injurious  Principles."  2 

Yet  this  very  language  illustrates  the  spirit  with  which  the 
Quakers  had  to  contend,  in  a  struggle  not  only  for  their  civil 
rights,  but  against  an  insidious  scheme  to  impose  an  unwel- 
come ecclesiastical  establishment  on  the  colony.  And  it  is 
pleasing  to  note  that  they  were  not  without  friends  outside  of 
their  own  sect.  Colonel  Morris  wrote  to  the  board  of  trade  3  Colonel 
of  the  shameful  extortion  practised  by  Cornbury's  officers  on  Morns- 
the  Quakers,  who  refused  to  pay  the  militia  tax,  saying  that 
they  distressed  "generally  above  ten  times  the  value,  which 
when  they  came  to  expose  to  sale  nobody  would  buy,  so  that 
there  is,  or  lately  was,  a  house  at  Burlington  filled  with 
demonstrations  of  Quaker  obstinacy."  He  declared  that 
"  this  extravagant  distress  from  the  Quakers  had  impoverished 
New  Jersie,"  and  then  paid  his  compliments  to  Lord  Corn- 
bury,  as  "a  wretch,  who  by  the  whole  conduct  of  his  life 
(here)  has  evinc't  y*  he  has  no  regard  to  honr  or  virtue." 

To  Colonel  Morris  was   added  Governor  Hunter  in  just  Hunter, 
consideration  for  the  Quakers,  and  with  his  entrance  to  the 


*  Archives,  III,  470. 

2  Ingoldsby,  however,  quite  overdrew  the  picture  at  another  time  (Archives, 
III,  413),  writing,  "For  the  Quakers,  we  meddle  not  with  their  Religious 
Perswasions  and  have  no  design  to  abridge  them  in  any  of  their  liberties 
and  Privileges:  But  their  Insolencies  in  Government  are  Intollerable,  by 
their  weekly,  monthly,  quarterly,  and  yearly  meeting  (where  civil  affairs 
are  managed  as  well  as  spiritual),  their  Intelligence  from  all  Foreign  Parts, 
and  General  Combinations,  they  become  Mischievous  and  daring,  even 
to  the  affronting  Magistrates  and  contemning  the  laws,  and  Particularly 
Pride  themselves  on  being  able  to  Cramp  and  Confound  Government." 

8  Archives,  III,  280. 


414  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

government  of  the  province  their  troubles  began  to  cease. 
Hunter,  though  a  sincere  Churchman,  was  not  bigoted.  Fair- 
minded  and  just,  he  refused  both  in  New  York  and  New  Jer- 
sey to  use  his  power  at  the  bidding  of  the  English  clergy, 
and  at  once  detected  the  iniquity  of  the  scheme  in  the  latter 
province  to  disable  the  Quakers  and  establish  the  Church  of 
England.  His  course  in  these  matters  brought  upon  him  the 
hatred  of  the  clergy,  who  lost  few  opportunities  of  maligning 
him  to  the  home  authorities.  The  governor,  in  New  Jersey 
as  in  New  York,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  greatly  disturbed 
by  these  attacks,  but  showed  himself  fully  able  to  return 
their  compliments  with  interest. 

In  the  year  (1711),  after  he  came  to  the  government  and 
probably  by  his  encouragement,  a  bill  was  passed  in  the 
assembly  to  relieve  Quakers  from  all  disabilities.  The  object 
was  to  place  in  a  formal  statute  an  assertion  of  the  privileges, 
which  had  been  conceded  in  the  queen's  instructions,  and 
which  the  Quakers  had  been  able  to  retain  only  by  dint  of 
much  and  constant  struggle.1  Of  this  action  Hunter  wrote 
to  the  board  of  trade  :  2  "  The  State  of  the  Province  absolutely 
Requires  such,  that  People  being  by  farr  the  most  numerous 
and  wealthy  in  the  Western  Division,  and,  as  I  may  affirm 
upon  experience,  the  most  Dutyfull." 

The  bill,  however,  was  thrown  out  by  the  council  and 
caused  no  small  excitement  among  the  Church  of  England 
party.  One  of  the  members  of  the  council  wrote  to  Dockura, 
then  in  London,  who  sent  the  letter  to  the  board  of  trade  :  3 
"  Hunter  has  entirely  and  passionately  espoused  the  seditious 
Party  of  Morris,  Johnstone,  &c.,  and  united  with  the  Quak- 
ers. The  Last  Bill  was  Such  a  Monster  that  every  Part  of  it 
was  Terrible.  It  unhinged  Our  Very  Constitution  of  Gov- 
ernment ...  a  great  Encouragement  of  Quakerism,  or  rather 
its  Establishment,  and  of  the  most  Pernicious  Consequences 
to  the  Church  of  England." 


1  Archives,  IV,  20.  2  j^  jy,  196. 

3  Ibid.,  IV,  121. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  415 

1  In  1713  the  effort  was  more  successfully  renewed.  The 
"  Act  for  Relief  of  the  Quakers,"  enabling  them  to  qualify  Act  for 
by  affirmation  for  jury  and  all  other  public  duty,  passed  both 
houses,  was  approved  by  the  governor  and  confirmed  by  the 
queen.  On  the  accession  of  King  George  L,  the  act  was  re- 
affirmed. Its  opponents  petitioned  the  king  against  it,  on  the 
astonishing  ground  that  it  was  "  repugnant  to  the  Laws  and 
Statutes  of  this  Realme  and  the  Rights  and  Libertys  of  the 
Subject."  The  board  of  trade,  considering  that  the  act  rather 
confirmed  the  rights  and  liberties  of  a  very  large  number  of 
his  Majesty's  subjects,  advised  the  king  that  it  should  stand  ; 
and  the  act  accordingly  received  the  royal  assent. 

Thus  ended  in  victory  for  the  Jersey  Quakers  their  fifty 
years'  struggle  for  the  full  acknowledgment  of  their  rights. 
There  was  afterward  an  occasional  outbreak  of  opposition, 
but  their  rights  were  not  again  seriously  imperilled.  The 
original  law  was  for  a  term  of  years,  was  renewed  in  1717, 
and  came  up  again  in  1725  and  1727.  On  this  last  occasion 
Governor  Montgomerie  opposed  renewal,  writing  to  Lon- 
don :  2  "  The  Quakers  do  not  deserve  his  Majesty's  assent 
to  the  act  ...  (They)  are  very  insolent  and  troublesome 
when  they  have  no  favor  to  ask,  but  quiet  and  useful  when 
they  have  anything  depending."  But  the  act  stood,  the 
lords  of  trade  writing  to  the  governor  that  they  "  allow  it  to 
lye-by  Probational,  and  hope  the  Behaviour  of  the  People 
will  never  induce  the  Crown  to  Repeal  it."  It  never  was 
disturbed,  and  thenceforth  the  most  serious  annoyance  to 
which  the  Quakers  were  subjected  was  the  penalty  under  the 
militia  act.  Party  rancor  seems  to  have  made  the  application 
unnecessarily  severe,  and  Governor  Morris,  who  had  criticised 
the  extortion  under  Cornbury,  had  to  admit  in  1740  that 
under  his  own  administration  the  distraint  was  excessive. 
But,  he  said,  "  the  Quakers  grew  fond  of  what  they  called 
suffering."  3 

i  Archives,  IV,  334,  342,  343,  367.  2  Ibid.,  V,  235,248. 

»  Ibid.,  VI,  104. 


416  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Besides  the  incidents  recited  the  colonial  archives  contain 
little  that  relates  to  the  questions  of  a  State-Church  and 
religious  liberty.  A  single  case  is  recorded  of  voluntary 
submission  to  the  governor's  ecclesiastical  authority.1  This 
is  a  petition  from  people  at  Woodbridge  for  permission  to 
build  a  Church,  for  "  the  service  of  God,  after  the  manner 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established"  The  peti- 
tion was  addressed  to  Hunter  in  1713. 

Much  space  in  the  record  of  his  administration  is  filled  by 
his  quarrels  with  the  Episcopal  ministers,  especially  Vesey 
of  New  York  and  Talbot  of  New  Jersey.  The  correspondence 
is  sufficiently  amusing  and  charged  with  a  sly  satire,  of  which 
Hunter  was  a  master,  but  it  is  not  germane  to  this  present 
treatise,  save  as  the  spirit  of  the  clerical  attacks  on  the  gov- 
ernor is  manifestly  due  to  his  refusal  to  forward  their  illegal 
schemes  for  aggrandizing  the  Church  of  England  at  the 
expense  of  other  Churches.  "  Meanwhile,"  wrote  Hunter  to 
Secretary  Popple  of  the  Board  of  Trade  in  1715,  "I  have 
enough  to  do  to  keep  the  peace  of  the  Churches,  but  Never 
fear,  your  friend  Jonathan  will  never  yield  to  'em,  so  long  as 
he  has  the  Grace  of  God  and  ye  prayers  of  the  Saints."  2 

Of  course,  to  the  end  of  the  colonial  chapter  the  home 
government  kept  up  the  fiction  of  an  establishment  in  New 
Jersey.  Every  royal  governor,  even  after  New  Jersey  was 
separated  from  New  York,  received  the  routine  instructions 
as  to  "  liberty  of  Conscience  to  all  persons  (except  Papists)," 
and  conferring  upon  him  ecclesiastical  powers,  which  in  New 
Jersey  at  least  amounted  to  nothing.  In  1730  the  crown 
issued  a  special  commission  to  the  bishop  of  London  for 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  the  colonies,  and  instructed  the 
governors  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
land, and  Virginia  "to  give  all  Countenance  and  due 
Encouragement  to  the  said  Bishop  of  London,  or  his  Com- 
missaries, in  the  legal  exercise  of  Such  Ecclesiastical  Juris- 
diction " ;  and  that  they  "  cause  the  Said  Commission  (of 
i  Archives,  IV,  189.  *  Im^  IV,  224. 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  417 

the  Bishop  of  London)  to  be  forthwith  Registered  in  the 
Publick  Records"  of  the  several  colonies.1  But  neither 
commission  nor  order  was  able  to  fasten  the  Anglican 
Church  upon  New  Jersey. 

At  the  very  end  of  the  period  (1771)  a  Presbyterian  Presbyte- 
movement  gave  occasion  for  a  curious  display  of  the  govern-  nan  society- 
mental  notion  that  there  either  was,  or  ought  to  be,  a  Church 
of  England  establishment  in  New  Jersey.2  The  origin  of  it 
was  an  application  from  the  Presbyterian  ministers,  headed 
by  John  Witherspoon,  for  a  charter  incorporating  a  "  Fund 
for  the  Support  of  Widows  and  Children  of  Presbyterian 
Clergymen."  Governor  Franklin  was  much  perplexed  by 
the  request  and  applied  to  the  attorney-general  of  the  colony, 
who  advised  sending  the  petition  to  England.  Then  the 
governor  consulted  his  own  council,  a  majority  of  which 
advised  giving  the  charter,  on  condition  that  "the  said 
Charter  be  unexceptionable  in  Point  of  Form,  and  be  confined 
solely  to  the  Purposes  of  the  Charitable  Institution  therein 
mentioned,  and  the  said  Corporation  made  accountable  to 
this  Board  (the  council)  for  the  Monies  they  shall  receive 
and  pay."  Then  the  governor  referred  the  question  to  Jus- 
tice David  Ogden  of  the  supreme  court,  who  approved  of 
giving  the  charter,  but  advised  the  striking  out  the  words 
describing  the  Presbyterian  clergy  as  "in  communion  with 
the  established  Church  of  Scotland,"3  because  it  was  "im- 
proper for  his  Excellency  to  recognize  by  the  Charter  the 
Established  Church  of  Scotland,  so  as  to  be  a  Rule,  or  mask, 
of  distinction  of  any  order  of  men  in  New  Jersey."  Another 
suggestion  of  change  came  in  a  second  report  from  the 
attorney-general,  who  advised  striking  the  word  "  clergymen  " 
from  the  petition  and  substituting  "  Ministers,"  or  "  Teachers," 
on  the  ground  that  "  the  King  can't  know,  or  with  Propriety 

1  Archives,  V,  264. 

2  Ibid.,  X,  339,  340,  350,  359,  400,  404,  407,  409. 

»  This  is  the  only  instance  I  have  found  in  colonial  history  of  appeal  to  the 
legal  status  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland.    (C.) 

2E 


418  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

call,  any  Men  Clergymen,  but  those  of  the  established  Church 
of  England,  at  least  in  England,  Ireland,  and  these  colonies." 

By  this  time  the  governor  was  in  a  fine  state  of  confusion, 
and  referred  the  petition  to  the  English  government.  He 
alluded  to  the  recent  refusal  of  the  king  to  grant  a  charter 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  New  York,  as  "  not  expedient 
upon  Principles  of  general  Policy  " ;  but  at  the  same  time, 
willing  to  do  the  Presbyterians  a  favor,  he  reminded  the 
home  government,  that  "  charters  for  the  like  Purpose  have 
been  lately  granted  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Established  Church 
of  England."  So  the  petition  went  to  England,  where  it  lay 
unanswered  for  two  years.  Then  in  1773  the  governor 
inquired  what  the  home  authorities  meant  to  do  about  it,  and 
received  from  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth  a  prompt  reply  that  the 
matter  would  be  considered.  This  was  soon  followed  by  the 
announcement  that  the  king  had  granted  the  petition,  and 
ordered  the  governor  to  pass  the  charter  and  affix  the  seal. 
The  "  incident  closed  "  with  a  grateful  acknowledgment  on 
the  part  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy,  in  October  of  1773. 

With  this  may  end  the  sketch  of  colonial  New  Jersey. 
Long  before  this  date,  while  still  clinging  to  the  fiction  of  a 
tacit  establishment,  the  Church  party  had  given  up  all  hope 
of  securing  by  the  colonial  legislature  a  recognition  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  clergy  of  that  Church  continued 
their  clamor  against  the  situation,  and  through  their  addiction 
to  the  English  Church  were,  with  few  exceptions,  pronounced 
in  espousal  of  the  king's  cause  in  the  revolutionary  struggle. 
But  for  the  mass  of  people  of  all  varieties  of  faith  the  ques- 
tion of  a  State-Church  was  finally  and  satisfactorily  settled, 
so  that  the  constitutional  definition  of  full  religious  liberty 
found  in  New  Jersey  no  statesman  to  call  it  in  question. 

IV.    Georgia 

Our  story  of  Georgia  must  necessarily  be  brief.  The  colony, 
opened  only  two  score  years  before  the  Revolution,  owed  its 
foundation  to  the  benevolent  and  gentle  heart  of  Oglethorpe, 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  419 

whose  merciful  thought  was  to  form  a  place  of  refuge  for 
distressed  people  of  England  and  persecuted  Protestants  of 
Europe.1  The  sufferings  of  the  poor,  and  especially  those 
in  the  debtors'  jails,  appealed  to  his  compassionate  spirit,  and 
he  determined  to  provide  a  relief.  The  charter  for  the  new 
colony  was  granted  by  George  II.  in  1732.2  The  charter 
had  the  following  language  in  regard  to  religion  :  "  And  for 
the  greater  Ease  and  Encouragement  of  Our  loving  Subjects 
and  such  others,  who  shall  come  to  inhabit  in  Our  said 
Colony,  We  do,  by  these  Presents,  for  Us,  our  Heirs  and 
Successors,  grant,  establish,  and  ordain,  That  forever  here- 
after there  shall  be  a  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE  allowed  Liberty  of 
in  the  Worship  of  God  to  all  Persons  .  .  .  within  our  said  consci^ce. 
Province,  and  that  all  such  Persons,  except  Papists,  shall  have 
a  free  exercise  of  Religion  ;  so  they  be  contented  with  a  quiet 
and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the  same,  not  giving  Offence  or 
Scandal  to  the  Government."  The  instrument  also  allowed 
to  Quakers  a  "  solemn  affirmation  "  in  place  of  an  oath. 

On  receiving  the  charter,  Oglethorpe  associated  with  him- 
self twenty  others  as  "  Trustees,"  among  whom  were  five 
clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  to  these  four  others 
were  afterward  added.  The  English  clergy  were  much 
interested  in  the  charitable  scheme  of  Oglethorpe,  and  ap- 
peals were  made  to  the  Church  at  large  for  contributions  to 
assist  its  work.3 

The  trustees  soon  issued  a  statement  of  their  "  Design," 
exposing  their  purpose  to  assist  distressed  Protestants,  who 
were  not  able  to  go  at  their  own  expense,  and  "  to  relieve 
such  unfortunate  persons  as  can  not  subsist  here";  and  ex- 
pressing the  hope  that  "  Christianity  will  be  extended  by  the  Freedom, 
execution  of  this  design."  Neither  in  the  charter  nor  in  the 
published  design  was  any  purpose  expressed  of  establishing 

1  Bancroft,  III,  419,  423,  447. 

2  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  I,  title,  A  True  and  Historical  Narrative  of 
the  Colony  of  Georgia. 

8  Stevens,  History  of  Georgia,  I,  319. 


420 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Care  for 
religion. 


the  Church  of  England.  Nor,  strange  as  it  appears,  did  the 
lively  interest  of  the  English  clergy  in  Oglethorpe's  scheme 
endeavor  to  supply  that  lack.  The  settlers  were  left  free  to 
their  religious  preferences,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the 
Roman  Catholic. 

Oglethorpe  and  the  trustees  were  not  indifferent,  however, 
to  the  religious  interests  of  their  colonists,  as  appears  from  their 
" Account,  Showing  the  Progress  of  the  Colony  of  Georgia" 1 
printed  at  London  in  1741.  The  account  was  a  reply  to 
the  "  True  and  Historical  Narrative"  in  which  was  a  sharp 
attack  on  Oglethorpe,  Canston,  and  Wesley.  The  trustees 
say  in  their  pamphlet  that  "  Lands  have  been  Granted  in 
Trust  for  Religious  Uses,  to  be  cultivated,  with  the  Money 
arising  from  Private  Beneficience  given  for  that  Purpose, 
in  order  to  settle  a  Provision  upon  a  Clergyman  at  Savannah, 
a  Catechist,  and  a  Scholar,  Three  Hundred  Acres."  After- 
ward similar  provisions  were  made  for  a  minister  at  Frederic  a, 
and  for  a  Scotch  Minister  at  New  Inverness.  But  in  none 
of  these  provisions  does  it  appear  that  there  was  any  denom- 
inational preference  on  the  part  of  the  authorities.  The 
clear  inference  is  that  the  trustees  and  colonial  government 
were  disposed  to  help  any  locality  in  the  provision  for  a 
minister  of  the  people's  choice.  This  help  was  given  in  the 
manner  of  foundation  grants,  and  did  not  involve  a  tax  for 
ministerial  support. 

It  were  out  of  place  to  enter  here  into  the  disputes  between 
the  trustees  and  the  colonists.  They  were  not  on  religious 
or  ecclesiastical  questions,  and  were  rather  charged  with 
mutual  jealousies.  The  zeal  of  Oglethorpe  impoverished 
himself,  and  it  can  be  justly  said  that  the  colonists  were  not 
properly  mindful  of  his  generosity.  The  quarrels  resulted 
in  1752  in  the  abrogation  of  the  charter  and  the  assumption 
established,  of  direct  government  by  the  crown.2  With  that  government 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  I. 

2  Anderson,  History  of  Colonial  Church,  III,  639 ;  Stevens,  History  of 
Georgia,  I,  444. 


Charter 
voided. 
Church  of 


CHANGING  ESTABLISHMENTS  421 

the  Church  of  England  entered  the  colony  and  was  formally 
established  by  the  colonial  legislature  of  1758.  The  colony 
was  divided  into  eight  parishes,  and  a  stipend  of  .£25  allowed 
to  the  clergy.  In  1769  there  were  but  two  Churches  of  the 
establishment  in  the  entire  colony. 

The  chief  interest  of  this  short  narrative  of  Georgia,  in 
our  study,  is  its  beginning  with  a  religious  liberty  knowing 
but  one  restriction,  and  its  finish  with  an  idle  attempt  to 
establish  a  Church,  to  which  as  an  establishment  was  fated 
but  a  short  lease  of  power.  The  breaking  out  of  the  Revolu- 
tion destroyed  what  little  semblance  of  life  it  ever  had. 


VII 

THE  FREE  COLONIES 

AGAINST  the  world-wide  principle  of  union  between  Church 
and  State,  which  found  more  or  less  of  power  in  twelve  of 
the  colonial  foundations  in  America,  there  were  three  colonies 
to  protest  from  their  beginnings,  with  no  uncertain  sound. 
They  were  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  and  Delaware. 

But  there  was  a  marked  difference  between  them.  The 
voice  of  Rhode  Island,  under  the  tutelage  of  Roger  Williams, 
was  far  more  emphatic  than  that  of  the  Quaker  colonies.  It 
not  only  decreed  a  complete  severance  of  state  from  Church, 
but  forbade  to  the  magistrate  any  inquiry  whatsoever  into  the 
views  of  the  citizen  on  matters  of  religion .  Pennsylvania,  — 
out  of  which  the  independent  colony  of  Delaware  afterward 
sprang,  —  founded  and  guided  by  Quaker  influence,  never 
attained  to  so  broad  a  view  of  religious  liberty;  for,  while 
denying  the  propriety  of  any  religious  establishment,  it  still 
incorporated  in  its  fundamental  law  an  invidious  distinction 
founded  on  religious  opinions  —  a  part  of  which  distinction 
remains  to  this  day.  This  distinction  is  as  to  belief  in  the 
existence  of  God,  upon  which  was  and  still  is  conditioned 
the  right  of  inhabitancy  and  citizenship.  It  is  but  fair  to 
add,  however,  that  this  distinction  seems  to  have  been  made 
rather  as  an  expression  of  opinion  and  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  founders,  than  as  a  practical  rule  of  exclusion.  No 
instance  of  interference  with  an  individual  for  atheistic  opin- 
ion is  recorded  in  the  colonial  history.  Nor  is  it  to  be  sup- 
posed that,  to-day,  the  law  would  challenge  an  atheist's  right 
to  all  the  privileges  of  a  citizen.  Practically,  the  liberty  of 
the  individual  in  religious  matters  was  from  the  beginning 

422 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  423 

nearly  so  well  assured  in  Pennsylvania  as  in  the  colony  of 
Williams.  To  the  latter,  however,  belongs  the  signal  honor 
of  first  defining  that  liberty  in  constitutional  terms,  untram- 
melled by  any  past  or  present  prejudices,  with  a  breadth  of 
view  and  fulness  of  statement  unsurpassed  by  any  legal  pre- 
scriptions of  a  later  day. 

I.   Rhode  Island 

The  history  of  Rhode  Island,  so  far  as  concerns  religious 
liberty,  is  both  brief  and  illustrious.  It  began  with  Roger 
Williams,  the  fugitive  from  Massachusetts'  ecclesiasticism. 
Himself  the  first  among  philosophers  and  statesmen,  since  the 
day  of  Constantine,  to  proclaim  the  complete  freedom  of 
mind  and  conscience  from  all  civil  bonds,  he  became  the 
founder  of  the  first  state  in  whose  fundamental  law  that 
freedom  was  incorporated,  not  only  as  a  charter  of  liberty, 
but  as  the  actual  reason  and  purpose  of  the  state's  existence. 
In  this  latter  particular,  indeed,  the  colony  of  Rhode  Island 
stands  alone,  owing  its  origin,  not  only  to  that  desire  for 
liberty  which  brought  the  Pilgrim  and  Puritan  to  New  Eng- 
land, but  to  the  set  and  acknowledged  purpose,  a  purpose 
confessed  by  its  founders  and  assented  to  by  the  king,  "  to 
hold  forth  a  lively  experiment,  that  a  most  flourishing  civil  The  experi- 
State  may  stand  and  best  be  maintained,  with  a  full  liberty  r 
of  religious  concernments." 

The  beginning  of  it  may  best  be  told  in  the  words  of  Will- 
iams himself  in  a  letter  to  Major  Mason  of  Connecticut,  Letter  to 
written  at  Providence  under  date  of  June  22,  1670,  thirty- 
four  years  after  Williams's  flight  from  Salem.1  The  occasion 
of  the  letter  was  made  by  some  suggested  encroachments  by 
the  surrounding  colonies  on  the  territory  of  Rhode  Island, 
and  it  reviews  some  of  the  writer's  early  experiences.  "When 
I  was  unkindly  and  un Chris tianly,  as  I  believe,  driven  from 
my  house  and  land  and  wife  and  children  (in  the  midst  of 
New  England  winter,  now  about  thirty-five  years  ago)  at 
1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  275. 


424  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Salem,  that  ever  honoured  Governor,  Mr.  Winthrop,  wrote 
to  me  to  steer  my  course  to  the  Nahiganset  Bay  and  Indians, 
for  many  high  and  heavenly  and  publick  ends,  incouraging 
me  from  the  freenes  of  the  place  from  any  English  claims  or 
patents.  I  took  his  prudent  motion  as  an  hint  and  voice  from 
God,  and  waving  all  other  thoughts  and  motions,  I  steered 
my  course  from  Salem  (though  in  winter  snow  which  I  feel 
now)  unto  these  parts,  wherein  I  may  say  Peniel,  that  is,  I 
have  seene  the  face  of  God.  ...  I  first  pitch't  and  begun 
to  build  and  plant  at  Secunk,  now  Rehoboth,  but  I  received 
a  letter  from  my  antient  friend,  Mr.  Winslow,  then  governor 
of  Plymouth,  (saying)  ...  I  was  fallen  into  the  edge  of 
their  bounds,  and  they  were  lothe  to  displease  the  Bay,  but  to 
remove  to  the  other  side  of  the  water,  and  there  I  had  the 
country  free  before  me." 

This  advice  also  Williams  followed,  and  named  his  new 
Providence,  settlement  PROVIDENCE.  But  Massasoit  claimed  that  the 
land  about  Providence  was  his  and  therefore  Plymouth's,  out 
of  which  claim  came  much  disturbance  to  Williams,  until 
Governor  Bradford  and  others  declared,  "  that  I  should  not 
be  molested  and  tost  up  and  down  againe,  while  their  breath 
was  in  their  bodies.  And  surely  between  those  my  friends 
of  the  Bay  and  Plymouth  I  was  sorely  tost  for  one  fourteen 
weeks  in  a  bitter  winter  season,  not  knowing  what  bread  or 
bed  did  meane.  .  .  .  God  knows  that  many  thousand  pounds 
can  not  repay  the  many  temporary  losses  I  have  sustained. 
...  It  pleased  the  Father  of  Spirits  to  touch  many  hearts, 
dear  to  Him,  with  some  relentings ;  amongst  which  that  great 
and  pious  soule,  Mr.  Winslow,  melted  and  kindly  visited  me 
at  Providence  and  put  a  piece  of  gold  into  the  hands  of  my 
wife  for  our  support." 

Williams  then  relates  the  attempt  of  Massachusetts  to 
establish  a  claim  upon  the  land  about  Providence,  and  the 
disallowance  thereof  by  the  king,  and  goes  on  to  declare  the 
main  object  of  the  colony :  "  But  here,  all  over  this  colonie, 
a  great  number  of  weake  and  distressed  soules  scattered  are 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  425 

flying  hither  from  Old  and  New  England.  The  Most  High  Design  of 
and  Only  Wise  hath  in  His  infinite  wisdom  provided  this  foundation- 
country  and  this  corner  as  a  shelter  for  the  poor  and  perse- 
cuted according  to  their  several  persuasions.  And  thus  that 
heavenly  man,  Mr.  Hains,  Governour  of  Connecticut,  though 
lie  pronounced  the  sentence  of  my  long  banishment  against 
me  at  Cambridge,  yet  said  unto  me  in  his  own  house  at  Hart- 
ford, being  then  in  some  difference  with  the  Bay,  'I  must 
now  confesse  to  you  that  the  most  wise  God  hath  provided 
and  cut  out  this  part  of  His  world  for  a  refuge  and  receptacle 
for  all  kinds  of  consciences.'  " 

Nothing  could  be  sharper  in  contrast  than  the  difference 
of  view  between  the  Puritans  of  the  Bay  and  the  Founder  of 
Rhode  Island.  "  The  hostility  of  the  Puritans,"  says  Doyle,1 
"  to  the  Church  of  England  was  temporary  and  conditional. 
That  of  Williams  was  rooted  in  the  nature  of  the  institution. 
(The  former)  objected  not  to  a  secular  control  over  the  Church, 
but  to  secular  control  exercised  for  what  they  deemed  wrong 
ends.  To  Williams  a  State-Church  was  an  abomination,  how- 
ever it  might  be  administered,  and  whether  it  abode  in  Rome, 
in  England,  or  in  Massachusetts." 

Thus  to  the  Puritan  of  the  Bay  his  own  Church,  in  its 
purity  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  represented  the  supreme 
function  and  duty  of  the  state;  conformity  became  a  neces- 
sary law,  and  dissent  was  both  criminal  and  revolutionary. 
To  Williams  there  were  no  possible  intersections  of  the 
Church  with  the  state.  The  two  institutions  were  as  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  as  though  their  local  habitations  were 
divided  by  the  earth's  diameter:  while  the  civil  law  had 
nothing  to  say  about  religion,  save  that  each  individual 
should  be  left  free  to  the  guidance  of  his  own  conscience ; 
and  the  Church,  or  Churches,  should  be  moulded  and  con- 
trolled by  the  desires  and  preferences  of  those  who  should 
voluntarily  associate  themselves  therein. 

Williams's  own  distinctions  were   clearly  drawn,  and  as 

1  Puritan  Colonies,  I,  155. 


426  '  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

noted  in  our  opening  chapter  —  despite  some  quaintness  of 
expression — cannot  be  improved  in  statement.  He  insisted, 
far  more  strenuously  than  any  men  of  his  time,  on  the  essen- 
wniiams's  tial  principle  —  a  principle  essential  to  true  religion  and  true 
principle.  humanity — of  the  lordship  of  God  alone  over  the  conscience. 
His  opponents  declared  the  principle  when  striving  for  their 
own  religious  rights,  and  there  stopped.  "  Yourselves  pre- 
tend," wrote  Williams,1  "  a  liberty  of  conscience ;  but  alas ! 
it  is  but  selfe,  the  great  god  Selfe,  only  to  yourselves." 
Williams  asserted  the  principle  to  be  broad  and  universal, 
and  to  define  "liberty  for  all  kinds  of  consciences." 

He  thence  argued  the  complete  separation  of  Church  from 
State,  both  on  the  ground  of  pure  religion  and  on  that  of  the 
radical  difference  of  nature  and  aim  between  the  two.  Thus,2 
"  As  it  would  be  confusion  for  the  Church  to  censure  such 
matters  and  acts  of  such  persons  as  belong  not  to  the  Church; 
so  it  is  confusion  for  the  State  to  punish  spiritual  offenses,  for 
.  they  are  not  within  the  sphear  of  a  civil  jurisdiction.  .  .  . 
The  Civil  State  and  Magistrate  are  meerly  and  essentially 
civil,  and  therefore  can  not  reach  (without  transgressing  the 
bounds  of  civility)  to  judge  in  matters  spiritual,  which  are  of 
another  sphear  and  nature  than  civility  is."  He  further 
defines  the  quality  of  any  action  in  Church  matters  by  a 
magistrate  as  belonging,  not  to  his  civil  office,  but  to  his 
personal  Church  membership :  "  So  far  forth  as  any  of  this 
civil  body  are  spiritual,  or  act  spiritually,  they  and  their 
actions  fall  under  a  spiritual  cognizance  and  judicature."  He 
then  deprecates  the  serious  damage  suffered  by  conscience 
and  religion  through  the  interference  of  the  civil  power: 

1  Puritan  Colonies,  p.  281. 

2  Bloody  Tenent  Made  More  Bloody,  pp.  199,  203,  209,  210.     This  tractate 
was  one  of  a  series.     The  first,  "  The  Bloody  Tenent  of  Persecution,"  by 
Williams.    This  John  Cotton  answered  with  "  Tlie  Bloody  Tenent  of  Perse- 
cution Washed  White  in  the  Blood  of  the  Lamb."     Williams  replied  with, 
"  The  Bloody  Tenent  of  Persecution  Made  More  Bloody  by  Mr.  Cotton's  At- 
tempt to  Wash  it  White:"1    (Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I, 
600,  601.) 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  427 

"  Civil  and  corporal  punishments  do  usually  cause  men  to 
play  the  hypocrite  and  dissemble  in  their  Religion,  to  turn 
and  return  with  the  tide,  as  all  experience  in  the  nations  of 
the  world  do  testifie  now.  This  binding  and  reminding  of 
conscience,  contrary  or  without  its  own  perswasion,  so  weak- 
ens and  defiles  it,  that  it  (as  all  other  faculties)  loseth  its 
strength  and  the  very  nature  of  a  common  honest  conscience. 
.  .  .  This  Tenent  of  the  Magistrates  keeping  the  Church 
from  Apostatizing,  by  practicing  civil  force  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men,  is  so  far  from  preserving  Religion  pure,  that 
it  is  a  mighty  Bulwark  or  Barricado  to  keep  out  all  true 
Religion." 

Another  suggestive  utterance  is  in  his  letter  to  Governor 
Endicott,1  after  the  shameful  abuse  of  Clarke  and  Holmes 
at  Lynn.  He  imagines  Endicott  soliloquizing ;  "  I  have 
fought  against  many  several  sorts  of  consciences:  is  it  beyond 
all  possibility  and  hazard  that  I  have  not  fought  against  God, 
that  I  have  not  persecuted  Jesus  in  some  of  them  ?  "  Then 
he  proceeds,  "Sir,  I  must  be  humbly  bold  to  say,  that  'tis 
impossible  for  any  man  or  men  to  maintain  their  Christ  with 
a  sword  and  worship  a  true  Christ !  to  fight  against  all  con- 
sciences opposite  to  theirs  and  not  to  fight  against  God  in 
some  of  them,  and  to  hunt  after  the  precious  life  of  the  true 
Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

Certainly,  in  Williams's  mind  there  was  thus  ground  enough 
for  the  challenge  contained  in  his  letter  to  Major  Mason  : 
"  I  have  offered,  and  doe  by  these  presents,  to  discuss  by  dis- 
putation .  .  .  these  three  positions:  1.  that  forced  worship 
stincks  in  God's  nostrils ;  2.  that  it  denies  Christ  Jesus  yet 
to  come ;  3.  that  in  these  flames  about  religion,  there  is  no 
other  prudent,  Christian  way  of  preserving  peace  in  the  world 
but  by  permission  of  differing  consciences." 

We  have  no  record  of  any  acceptance  of  this  challenge,  or 
of  any  such  public  discussion.  Had  such  been  possible  under 
the  circumstances,  we  may  doubt  whether  the  opponents  of 
i  Williams,  Letters^  p.  225. 


428  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Williams  would  have  been  willing  to  meet  him  at  so  close 
Character  quarters.  He  was  a  born  fighter,  with  a  superb  dialectical 
of  Williams,  skiu  an(j  an  in(iomitable  courage  and  tenacity,  by  no  means 
an  easy  man  to  face  in  debate.  His  insight  of  spiritual  truth 
was  far  deeper  than  that  of  any  contemporary ;  he  detected 
on  the  instant  any  false  premise  or  conclusion,  and  was  both 
clear  and  crushing  in  reply.  One  cannot  read,  for  instance, 
his  discussion  with  Cotton  without  admiring  his  cogent  straight- 
forwardness, or  at  the  same  time  wondering  whether  Cotton  was 
not  himself  conscious  of  his  own  weakness  in  defence. 

Yet  Williams  was  far  from  being  a  litigious  man.  Though 
much  of  his  life  was  spent  in  strife,  he  was  no  lover  of  fight- 
ing for  its  own  sake.  He  was  of  gentle  and  placable  dis- 
position —  a  personality  loving  and  lovable.  The  sweetness 
of  that  disposition  never  was  soured  by  the  injustice  of  his 
foes;  he  seldom  fell  into  the  mistake,  so  common  to  moral 
reformers,  of  reckoning  personal  abuse  as  a  proper  weapon 
in  the  arena  of  debate;  nor  does  he  seem  to  have  ever  har- 
bored a  single  revengeful  thought  toward  those  who  were 
prominent  in  the  proceedings  against  him.  Haines  is  "  that 
heavenly  man  "  and  Winthrop,  "  that  ever  honoured  Gov- 
ernor." With  the  latter,  indeed,  he  sustained  a  very  tender 
friendship,  writing  to  him  in  most  affectionate  terms.1  Soon 
after  going  to  Providence  he  sought  advice  from  Winthrop 
in  regard  to  organizing  the  new  plantation,  and  began: 
"  The  frequent  experience  of  your  loving  ear,  ready  and  open 
towards  me  (in  what  your  conscience  hath  permitted),  as 
also  of  the  excellent  spirit  of  wisdom  and  prudence  where- 
with the  Father  of  Lights  hath  endued  you,  embolden  me  to 
request  a  word  of  private  advice."  Again  he  wrote :  "  I 
still  wait  upon  your  love  and  faithfulness."  In  another 
letter:  "You  request  me  to  be  free  with  you,  and  there- 
fore blame  me  not  if  I  answer  your  request,  desiring  the  like 
payment  from  your  own  dear  hand  at  any  time,  in  any  place." 
And  once  again:  "I  wish  heartily  prosperity  to  you  all, 
i  Williams,  Letters,  pp.  3,  7,  11,  12. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  429 

Governor  and  people,  in  your  civil  way,  and  mourn  that  you 
see  not  your  poverty,  nakedness,  &c  in  spirituals."  When 
he  set  out  to  reply  to  Cotton,  whose  pen  had  not  failed  in 
caustic  qualities,  he  began  :  "  I  desire  my  Rejoynder  may  be 
as  full  of  love  as  truth''' 

Such  equanimity  and  ability  to  keep  sweet  the  fountains 
of  friendship,  even  toward  those  who  had  been  cruelly  ad- 
verse, are  rare  among  men.  It  is  pleasing  also  to  note  that, 
despite  the  intense  disapproval  of  his  doctrines,  this  lovable 
character  was  not  always  without  effect  upon  his  foes.  Of 
this  there  is  a  curious  token  in  Scottow's  Narrative  :  l  "  This 
child  of  Light  (Williams)  walked  in  Darkness  about  Forty 
years  .  .  .  yet  did  not  his  Root  turn  into  Rottenness.  The 
Root  of  the  Matter  abode  in  him." 

Within  two  years  after  Williams's  settlement  at  Providence 
he  was  joined  by  various  others,  who  had  become  dissatisfied 
with  the  conditions  in  the  neighboring  colonies;  and  prob- 
ably by  some  who  came  almost  directly  from  England,  with- 
out staying  to  try  conclusions  in  the  Bay. 

Meanwhile  another  settlement,  part  of  the  colony  that  was 
soon  to  be,  had  been  made  on  the  island  of  Rhode  Island,  at  Rhode 
Aquidneck.  Thither  had  repaired  some  of  the  banished  fol- 
lowers  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson  with  other  sympathizers,  chief 
among  them  Coddington  and  Aspinwall.2  They  were  soon 
followed  by  the  Hutchinsons,  and  were  prompt  to  make  for 
themselves  institutions  of  free  government.  In  January,  1638, 
the  settlers  adopted  the  following  covenant  :  3  — 

Ex.  24  :  "  We,  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  incorporate  ourselves  into 

3,  4.  a  body  politick,  and,  as  He  shall  help,  will  submit  our  persons, 

2  Chron.  liyegj  an(i  estates  unto  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  King  of  Kings 

!i  :  3>  and  Lord  of  Lords,  and  to  all  those  perfect  and  most  absolute 


11  -i?     laws  of  His>  given  us  in  His  k°lv  word  of  trutn>  to  be  guided 
and  judged  thereby." 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  281. 

2  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  347-351. 
«  Ibid.,  II,  7  ;  77. 


430  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  first  act  of  legislature,  passed  March  13,  1638,  ordered 
that,  "  None  shall  be  received  as  inhabitants  or  freemen,  to 
build  or  plant  upon  the  Island,  but  such  as  shall  be  received 
in  by  the  consent  of  the  body,  and  do  submit  to  the  govern- 
ment that  is,  or  shall  be,  established  according  to  the  word  of 
God."  In  1641  this  government  was  legally  defined  by  the 
legislature  as  "  a  Democracy,  or  popular  government,"  and  it 
was  ordered  that,  "  none  be  accounted  a  delinquent  for  doc- 
trine, provided  that  it  be  not  directly  repugnant  to  the  gov- 
ernment or  laws  established."  At  the  next  session  it  was 
"  ordered,  that  that  law  of  the  last  Court,  made  concerning 
liberty  of  conscience  in  point  of  doctrine,  be  perpetuated." 

At  Providence  Williams  also  was  casting  about  to  devise 
means  for  the  organization  of  government.  He  took  counsel 
with  Winthrop,  and  decided  that  the  first  thing  to  be  done 
Warwick  was  to  procure  a  colonial  charter.  For  this  he  turned  to  Eng- 
charter.  land,  intending  a  personal  visit,  and  wrote  to  the  Massachu- 
setts authorities  for  permission  to  embark  at  Boston,  that  he 
might  "inoffensively  and  without  molestation  pass  through 
your  Jurisdiction,  as  a  stranger  for  a  night,  to  the  ship."1 
The  desired  permission  does  not  appear  to  have  been  given, 
and  Williams  sailed  for  England,  1643,  probably  from  Ply- 
mouth. The  same  year,  he  obtained  from  the  Earl  of  War- 
wick a  charter  for  the  "  Incorporation  of  the  Providence 
Plantations  in  the  Narraganset  Bay  in  New  England."  2  The 
charter  was  in  1644  confirmed  by  the  parliament,  and  with 
it  Williams  sailed  from  England  direct  to  Boston,  bringing 
also  an  official  letter  to  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts. 

This  letter  he  relied  upon  as  a  protection,  and  in  virtue  of 
the  official  character  it  put  upon  him  as  a  governmental  mes- 
senger he  was  suffered  to  pass  unmolested  through  the  colony 
to  Providence.  The  letter  undoubtedly  contained  some  re- 
flections on — if  not  reproofs  for — the  past  treatment  of 
Williams  ;  for,3  "  Upon  the  receipt  of  the  said  letter,  the 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  IV,  4 ;  471. 

2  Palfrey,  I,  344.  8  Hubbard,  History  of  New  England. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  431 

governor  and  Magistrates  of  the  Massachusetts  found  upon 
the  examination  of  their  hearts  they  saw  no  reason  to  condemn 
themselves  for  any  former  proceedings  against  Mr.  Williams : 
but  for  any  offices  of  Christian  love  and  duties  of  humanity 
they  were  very  willing  to  maintain  a  mutual  correspondency 
with  him.  But  as  to  his  dangerous  principles  of  separation, 
unless  he  can  be  brought  to  lay  them  down,  they  see  no  rea- 
son why  to  concede  to  him,  or  any  so  persuaded,  free  liberty 
of  ingress  or  egress,  lest  any  of  their  people  should  be  drawn 
away  with  his  erroneous  opinions." 

The  charter  of  1644  was  silent  on  matters  of  conscience 
and  worship,  probably  because  Williams  did  not  wish  to  raise 
the  question  with  the  English  authorities,  and  also  held  that 
religious  liberty  was  an  indefeasible  right  which  no  charter 
could  grant.  There  was  no  objection,  however,  to  the  declara- 
tion of  that  right  in  a  statute.  At  the  first  legislative  assem- 
bly a  code  of  laws  was  adopted.1  The  preamble  defined  the  Code  of 
form  of  government  as  "  Democratical,  that  is  to  say,  A  gov-  laws' 
ernment  held  by  the  free  and  voluntary  consent  of  all,  or  the 
greater  part,  of  the  free  inhabitants  " ;  and  then  proceeded 
to  declare,  as  fundamental  to  that  government,  the  broadest 
conceivable  liberty  of  conscience  and  of  worship.  Its  notable 
words  run  :  "  And  now  to  the  end  that  we  may  give  each  to 
other  (notwithstanding  our  different  consciences  touching 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus)  as  good  and  hopeful  assurance  as 
we  are  able,  touching  each  man's  peaceable  and  quiet  enjoy- 
ment of  his  lawful  right  and  liberty."  Thereon  in  the  act 
followed  the  code  of  civil  law,  which  concluded  with  the 
words:  —  "And otherwise  than  this  (what  is  herein  forbidden) 
all  men  may  walk  as  their  consciences  persuade  them,  every 
one  in  the  name  of  his  GOD.  AND  LET  THE  LAMBS  OF  THE 

MOST  HIGH  WALK  IN  THIS  COLONY  WITHOUT  MOLESTATION,  IN 
THE  NAME  OF  JEHOVAH  THEIR  GOD,  FOR  EVER  AND  EVER."  2 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  II,  7  ;  78,  79. 

2  In  the  Collections  a  footnote  by  the  unknown  transcriber  of  the  above 
declares,  "  The  men,  who  at  such  a  time  and  under  such  circumstances  could 


432 


KISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


New  Eng- 
land Con- 
federacy. 


The  declaration  of  so  complete  freedom  was  attended  in 
its  first  years  with  some  disadvantages.  Most  men  of  the  day 
could  not  understand  it,  unable  to  make  the  distinction,  which 
to  Williams  was  clear  as  the  day,  between  freedom  of  mind 
from  spiritual  tyranny  and  freedom  of  conduct  from  the  re- 
straint of  civil  law.  So  it  fell  out  that  the  new  plantations, 
Dangers.  for  a  little  space,  became,  not  only  "  a  refuge  for  all  sorts  of 
consciences,"  but  a  resort  for  all  classes  of  discontent ;  a  Cave 
Adullam,  to  which  fled  many,  who  under  the  cloak  of  con- 
science shielded  a  desire  for  general  lawlessness.  The  idea 
of  personal  liberty  was  exaggerated  into  a  positive  danger  to 
all  civil  order. 

Upon  this  untoward  tendency  the  enemies  of  Rhode  Island 
seized  with  abundant  disposition  to  make  the  most  of  it.  As 
already  noted,  when  Rhode  Island  applied  for  admission  into 
the  New  England  Confederacy  the  request  was  refused, 
because  "  Your  present  state  and  condition  are  full  of  confu- 
sion and  danger." 1  We  may  take  it  that  such  charge  was 
readily  seized  upon  by  the  Massachusetts  commissioners,  who 
were  supreme  in  the  federal  council,  to  disqualify  a  colony 
founded  on  a  principle  so  opposite  to  their  own.  This  is  the 
more  evident  from  the  further  reply,  that  the  island  of  Rhode 
Island  belonged  to  Plymouth,  and  therefore  the  jurisdiction 
of  that  colony  must  be  acknowledged  before  the  applicant 
could  be  admitted. 

Another  indication  of  this  hostile  sentiment  is  contained 
Hostility.  in  a  bitter  letter  from  William  Arnold,  of  Pawtucket,  to  Gov- 
ernor Endicott,  1651.2  It  was  written  with  the  avowed 
design  to  inform  the  governor  of  what  was  "  doing  in  the 
parts  about  Providence  and  Rhode  Island,"  and  tells  of  a 
movement  toward  sending  Williams  to  England  to  obtain 
a  second  charter,  which  should  include  both  settlements. 
"  If  they  should  get  them  a  charter,"  he  wrote,  "  off  it  there 

frame  such  a  law  and  undeviatingly  adhere  to  its  principles  .  .  .  will  I  rever- 
ence, on  this  side  idolatry." 

i  Hutchinson,  Collections,  p.  226.  2  Ibid.,  p.  237. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  433 

may  come  some  mischeive  and  trouble  upon  the  whole  coun- 
try, if  their  project  be  not  prevented  in  time ;  for,  under  the 
pretence  of  liberty  of  conscience,  about  these  partes  there 
comes  to  lieve  all  the  scume,  the  runne-awayes  of  the  coun- 
try, which  in  tyme  for  want  of  better  order  may  bring  a 
heavy  burden  on  the  land.  .  .  .  We  that  live  heere  neere 
them  .  .  .  humbly  desire  God  their  purpose  may  be  frus- 
trated. I  humbly  desire  my  name  may  be  conceled,  lest  they 
will  be  enraged  against  me." 1 

Still  another  token  of  this  unfriendly  regard,  founded  on 
the  stories  of  Rhode  Island  disorder,  may  be  quoted  for  its 
characteristic  expression  from  the  Wonder-  Working  Provi- 
dence of  Zion's  Saviour.2  The  passage  concludes  the  account 
of  the  Hutchinson  episode  at  Boston,  and  recounts :  "  Those 
sinful  erroneous  persons,  being  banished,  resorted  to  a  place 
more  Southward  .  .  .  where  having  elbowe-roome  enough, 
none  of  the  Ministers  of  Christ,  nor  any  other  to  interrupt 
their  false  and  deceivable  doctrines,  they  hampered  them- 
selves foully  with  their  owne  line,  and  soone  shewed  the 
depthlesse  ditches  that  blinde  guides  lead  into.  .  .  .  Some 
of  the  female  sexe  .  .  .  from  an  ardent  desire  of  being 
famous,  especially  the  grand  Mistresse  of  them  all,  who 
ordinarily  prated  every  Sabbath  day,  till  others  who  thirsted 
after  honor  in  the  same  way  with  herselfe,  drew  away  her 
Auditors,  and  then  she  withdrew  herself,  her  husband  and 
her  family  also,  to  a  more  remote  place."  3 

Williams's  own  reply  to  the  malignant  aspersions  of  his 
colony,  and  to  those  individuals  in  the  colony  who  presumed 

1  This  Arnold  was  one  of  a  small  company  of  four  families  at  Pawtucket, 
about  whom  Williams  wrote  in  1656  officially,  as  president  of  Providence 
Plantation,  to  the  Massachusetts  authorities,  complaining  of  their  trouble- 
some conduct,  and  said  they  were  "  very  far  also  in  religion  from  you,  if  you 
knew  all."     (Hutchinson,  Collections,  pp.  275-282.) 

2  Force,  Historical  Tracts. 

8  It  is  true  that  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  with  some  of  her  family,  removed  to 
Manhattan,  and  there  perished  in  the  Indian  massacre  excited  by  the  foolish 
Kieft.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  her  removal  due  to  offended  vanity. 


434  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

that  license  and  disorder  were  justified  by  his  views  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  is  well  expressed  in  a  letter  to  the  magistrates 
and  town  of  Providence.  "  That  ever  I  should  speak  or 
write  a  tittle  that  tends  to  such  an  infinite  liberty  of  con- 
science is  a  mistake."  He  then  compares  the  commonwealth 
to  a  ship  with  all  sorts  of  people,  Papists,  Protestants,  Jews, 
Turks,  of  whom  none  should  be  forced  to  prayers  or  worship ; 
but  if  any  should  be  mutinous  and  refuse  duty  or  help  toward 
the  common  charges,  or  "preach  that  there  ought  to  be  no 
commanders  because  all  are  equal  in  Christ,  I  say,  the  com- 
mander may  judge,  resist,  compel,  and  punish  such  transgres- 
sors, according  to  their  deserts  and  merits."  1 

The  movement,  alluded  to  in  Arnold's  letter  to  Endicott, 
toward  obtaining  a  charter  which  should  merge  Providence 
and  Rhode  Island  in  one  colony,  was  the  natural  outcome 
from  the  similar  aims  and  close  neighborhood  of  the  two 
settlements.  The  desire  for  this  union  seems  to  have  found 
expression,  and  to  have  met  with  general  approval,  almost 
immediately  on  the  granting  of  the  Providence  charter  of 
1644.  The  scheme,  however,  had  some  opponents,  chief 
among  whom  was  Coddington,  the  governor  of  the  island 
settlement.2  In  1650  he  went  to  England  to  forestall  the 
New  char-  plans  of  the  union,  and  succeeded  in  obtaining  an  order  for 
the  separate  government  of  Rhode  Island.  With  this  he 
returned  home,  and  the  people  at  first  submitted,  but  after 
a  few  months  disowned  him  and  his  government  and  again 
united  with  Williams  in  efforts  for  the  charter.  John  Clarke 
was  joined  with  Williams  in  an  embassy  to  England,  whither 
the  two  men  went  in  1651. 

Williams  remained  in  England  for  three  years,  having 
much  converse  with  Cromwell,  Milton,  and  others,  and 
steadily  pressing  his  suit.  For  some  unexplained  reason, 
unless  it  be  the  influence  of  Coddington,  he  failed  in  securing 
the  object  of  his  mission,  and  in  1654  went  back  to  Provi- 

1  Williams,  Letters,  p.  278. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  V,  217. 


THE  FREE   COLONIES  435 

dence,  leaving  Clarke  as  agent  for  their  joint  interests. 
"  Plead  our  cause,"  he  wrote  to  Clarke  in  1658,  "  in  such 
sort  as  we  may  not  be  compelled  to  exercise  any  civil  power 
over  men's  consciences." 

But  Cromwell  neither  granted  nor  denied  the  application, 
and  presently  his  death  made  room  for  the  restoration  of  the 
kingdom.  To  Charles,  therefore,  a  new  petition  was  pre-  Charles  n. 
sented  in  1662,  and  to  that  king,  "  who  never  said  a  foolish 
thing,  and  never  did  a  wise  one,"  save  this  present  action, 
belongs  the  honor  of  granting  the  broadest  charter  of  human 
liberties  ever  issued  under  a  royal  seal  —  a  noble  exception 
of  wisdom  in  his  deed.  The  character  of  it  is  so  averse  to  all 
the  ordinary  principles  controlling  his  government  of  Great 
Britain,  and  the  liberties  granted  by  it  are  so  contradictory 
to  his  cherished  prerogatives,  that  we  can  account  for  his  con- 
cessions only  by  one  of  those  inconsistent  moods  of  com- 
placency, to  which  he  gave  occasional  sway  in  the  earlier 
years  of  his  reign. 

The  king  seems  to  have  been  attracted,  not  from  any  love 
of  liberty,  but  from  sheer  curiosity,  by  the  novelty  of  the 
purpose  expressed  by  the  petitioners  in  that  famous  sentence, 
already  quoted :  "  It  is  much  in  our  hearts  to  hold  forth  a 
lively  experiment,  that  a  most  flourishing  civil  State  may  stand, 
and  best  be  maintained,  with  a  full  liberty  of  religious  concern- 
ments." It  is  a  strange  thing  that  the  royal  mind  should  be 
affected  favorably  to  so  unheard-of  proposition,  and  stranger 
still  that  Clarendon  should  have  exerted  himself  to  obtain  for 
the  petitioners  the  full  extent  of  their  desire,  and  more. 
Others  of  the  king's  ministers  opposed  the  grant,  as  appears 
from  Williams's  letter  to  Major  Mason.1  He  there  justly 
described  the  charter  as  "  The  King's  extraordinary  favor  to 
this  Colony,  in  which  his  Majesty  declared  himself  that  he 
would  experiment,  whether  civil  government  could  exist  with 
such  liberty  of  conscience."  Thus  Charles  adopted  the  peti- 
tioners' experiment  as  his  own.  Williams  proceeds,  "This 
1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  I,  281. 


436  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

his  Majesty's  graunt  was  startled-at  by  his  Majesty's  high 
officers  of  State  .  .  .  but,  fearing  the  lyon's  roaring,  they 
(were)  couchant  against  their  wills  in  obedience  to  his 
Majesty's  pleasure." 

The  charter  was  issued  in  1663.1  Its  section  on  religious 
matters  reads:  "No  person  within  the  said  colony,  at  any 
time  hereafter,  shall  be  any  wise  molested,  punished,  disquali- 
fied, or  called  in  question  for  any  difference  of  opinion  in 
matters  of  religion  :  every  person  may  at  all  times  freely  and 
fully  enjoy  his  own  judgment  and  Conscience  in  matters  of 
religious  concernments."  Beside  this  the  charter  bestowed 
upon  the  people  of  Rhode  Island  a  civil  liberty  greater  than 
that  conceded  to  any  other  colony.  Even  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance was  not  required;  and  the  demand,  that  the  laws 
passed  by  the  colonial  legislature  should  be  "agreeable  to 
the  laws  of  England,"  was  qualified  by  a  "  reference  to  the 
constitution  of  the  place  and  the  nature  of  the  people."2 
Full  liberty.  Thus  was  constituted,  and  by  a  king  whose  tendencies  and 
desires  were  all  toward  despotism,  a  genuine  republic  —  the 
first  thoroughly  free  government  in  the  world,  where  the  state 
was  left  plastic  to  the  moulding  will  of  the  citizen ;  the  con- 
science at  liberty  to  express  itself  in  any  way  of  doctrine  and 
worship;  the  Church  untrammelled  by  any  prescription  or 
preference  of  the  civil  law.  In  this  little  colony  of  Rhode 
Island  was  first  set  up  this  "ensign  for  the  people,"  the 
model  for  that  sisterhood  of  states  which  was  yet  to  possess 
the  continent. 

With  such  a  beginning  the  further  history  of  religious  lib- 
erty in  Rhode  Island  presents  little  matter  for  comment.3 
The  battle  was  already  won,  the  colony  started  at  the  point 
which  the  most  of  her  sisters  reached  only  at  the  Revolution. 

The  "  Great  Charter  "  was  received  by  the  people  with  joy, 
and  the  legislature  in  its  first  session  (1664)  organized  the 

1  Palfrey,  II,  52. 

2  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  II,  62-68. 

8  Felt,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  New  England,  I,  609. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  437 

government  anew,  repealing  all  laws  inconsistent  with  the 
charter,  and  in  its  very  words  establishing  religious  liberty. 
In  the  next  year  the  legislature  renewed  its  declaration, 
asserting  that,  "liberty  to  all  persons  as  to  the  worship  of 
God  had  been  a  principle  maintained  in  the  colony  from  the 
very  beginning  thereof ;  and  it  was  much  in  their  hearts  to 
preserve  the  same  liberty  forever." 

From  this  principle  the  people  and  government  of  Rhode 
Island  never  departed,  and  no  religionist  was  ever  questioned, 
or  subjected  to  struggle  or  distress,  in  respect  to  faith  and 
worship.  The  royal  commissioners,  who  visited  New  England 
in  1665,  reported  of  Rhode  Island :  "  They  allow  liberty  of 
conscience  to  all  who  live  civilly :  they  admit  of  all  religions." 

In  the  after  history  of  the  colony  there  appear  but  two 
doubtful  exceptions  to  the  reign  of  this  perfect  freedom,  —  Exceptions, 
one  relating  to  the  Quakers,  and  the  other  to  Roman 
Catholics.  The  alleged  action  against  the  Quakers  was  in  a  Quakers, 
bill  of  outlawry,  1665,  because  they  would  not  bear  arms. 
But  this  bill,  it  would  appear,  never  became  law,  the  people 
in  general  protesting  against  it  and  not  suffering  its  enact- 
ment.1 In  the  same  year  the  royal  commissioners  attempted 
to  supply  a  lack  in  the  charter  by  demanding  the  oath  of 
allegiance,  but  the  legislature  would  concede  nothing  beyond 
an  engagement  of  fidelity  and  obedience  to  the  laws,  on  pain 
of  forfeiture  of  the  franchise ;  and,  when  the  Quakers  com- 
plained that  the  requirement  was  irksome,  the  law  was 
repealed. 

There  appears  in  the  Revised  Statutes  a  law  purporting  to 
have  been  passed  "at  some  time  after  1688,"  denying  citizenship 
to  Roman  Catholics.2  This  law  Bancroft  argues  was  never  the  Romanists, 
act  of  the  people,  or  of  the  legislature,  but  that  the  committee 
of  revisal,  preparing  the  record  for  printing  (the  earliest 
extant  copy  bearing  date  of  1744),  interpolated  this  law, 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Collections,  V,  217  ;  Bancroft,  II,  67. 

2  Fisher,  History  of  Church,  479  ;  Bancroft,  History  of  United  States,  II, 
65 ;  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  III,  436. 


488'  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  for  which  the  occasion  grew  out  of  English  politics."  The 
clause,  "  passed  at  some  time  after  1688,"  is  a  footnote  in  the 
revision  of  1744,  and  clearly  shows  that  the  revisers  had 
before  them  no  official  minutes  of  the  act,  and  were  guided 
by  prejudice,  or  policy,  or  a  memory  more  or  less  at  fault,  or 
yet,  tradition. 

Strangely  enough,  Professor  Fiske,  in  his  "Dutch  and 
Quaker  Colonies"  l  founds  upon  this  very  doubtful  bit  of  legis- 
lation a  comparison  between  Rhode  Island  and  Pennsylvania, 
with  regard  to  their  respective  attitudes  on  the  question  of 
religious  liberty,  which  is  quite  disparaging  to  the  former.  He 
not  only  assumes  that  the  doubtful  law  was  enacted,  but  makes 
the  surprising  statement  that  in  Pennsylvania  "  all  Christian 
sects  stood  socially  and  politically  on  an  equal  footing;"  and 
that  what  Pennsylvania  specially  "stood  for  was  liberty  of  con- 
science." This  is  robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul,  with  a  vengeance. 
One  might  well  hesitate  to  make  a  stain  upon  the  fair  fame 
of  Rhode  Island  out  of  a  record  so  dubious  and  so  diverse 
from  all  else  in  her  history ;  while,  as  to  Pennsylvania,  it  will 
presently  be  shown  that  she  never  stood  for  full  liberty  of 
conscience,  and  that  through  her  entire  colonial  history  the 
Jew  and  the  Socinian  were  disfranchised,  while  from  1702  to 
the  Revolution  the  Roman  Catholic  was  made  incapable  of 
holding  office. 

It  remains  to  be  said  of  this  doubtful  act  that,  supposing 
the  law  to  have  been  passed,  it  could  have  wrought  no  hard- 
ship, for  there  were  no  Roman  Catholics  in  the  colony. 
When  the  first  professors  of  that  faith  came  to  Rhode  Island, 
in  the  persons  of  the  officers  and  men  of  the  French  fleet  aid- 
ing the  colonies  in  the  Revolution,  the  legislature,  "  to  efface 
any  semblance  of  opprobrium,"  at  once  caused  the  law  to  be 
expunged,  as  not  belonging  to  the  record. 

In  the  earlier  day  there  were  plenty  of  people  to  circulate 

Disorders,      stories   to  the  discredit  of  the  colony.     The  magistrates  of 

Boston  thought  ill   of  Williams  because,  while  he  did  not 

1  Vol.  II,  p.  99. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  439 

approve  the  restlessness  of  Gorton,  he  refused  to  join  them  in 
action  against  him.  Williams  in  his  letter  to  Mason  refers  to 
tales  told  to  the  king,  "  that  we  are  prophane  people  and  do 
not  keep  the  Sabbath  ...  But  you  told  him  not  how  we 
suffer  freely  all  other  perswasions,  yea,  the  Common-prayer 
which  yourselves  will  not  suffer  .  .  .  Generally  all  this 
whole  colonie  observe  the  first  day ;  only  here  and  there  one 
out  of  conscience,  another  out  of  covetousness." 

It  is  true  that  some  disorders  existed  in  the  earlier  years, 
by  reason  of  which  the  example  of  Rhode  Island  did  not 
exert  upon  the  other  colonies  the  effect  that  should  have 
attended  its  illustrious  definition  and  establishment  of  a 
perfect  liberty.1  But  the  actual  effects  were  to  be  expected. 
The  doctrine  was  too  broad  for  general  comprehension  and  to 
many  seemed  pregnant  of  destructive  license  —  a  conclusion 
not  dispelled  by  the  tendency  toward  Rhode  Island  of  such 
persons  as  found  themselves  uncomfortable  in  neighboring 
colonies. 

It  may  be  said  also,  that  for  the  most  of  the  Rhode  Island 
men  themselves  the  principle  was  at  first  too  broad.  The 
sense  of  the  individual  right  inculcated  by  it  went  far  to 
weaken  the  sense  of  that  principle  of  association  which  is 
necessary,  with  mutual  concessions  and  limitations,  to  the 
perpetuity  of  the  institutions  of  liberty  itself.  Hence  in  the 
colony  there  was  often  an  altogether  unreasonable  impatience 
at  the  proper  restraints  of  law,  and  in  the  Church  there  was 
so  positive  assertion  of  the  individual  conscience,  that  years 
passed  away  before  the  people  found  a  method  of  voluntary 
association  in  which  difference  of  view  and  unity  of  action 
could  coexist.2 

But  all  these  things  marked  but  the  ferment  caused  by  a 
new  and  vital  spirit.  The  principle  had  to  be  learned  by 
degrees  in  its  practical  applications.  The  "lively  experi- 
ment "  had  to  be  put  upon  its  trials,  until  men  should  discover 

1  Palfrey,  I,  390  ;  II,  110 ;  III,  217,  326. 

2  Ibid.,  Ill,  434-437. 


440  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

that  liberty  and  law  must  go  hand  in  hand;  that  faith, 
freedom,  and  union  are  needful  to  the  "  civil "  and  spiritual 
man. 

This  lesson  little  Rhode  Island  was  the  first  of  all  states 
in  the  world  to  set  herself  to  learn.  She  learned  and  gave 
it  as  an  object  lesson  to  her  sisters  and  the  earth  at  large. 
Her  experiment  was  a  success.  As  the  result  of  it,  when 
the  Revolution  came,  shattering  the  established  Church  in 
other  colonies,  and  demanding  for  them  new  constitutions 
suitable  to  changed  conditions,  Rhode  Island  passed  into 
the  American  Union,  still  under  the  old  charter  of  King 
Charles,  to  keep  it  as  her  fundamental  law  for  two  genera- 
tions afterward. 


II.    Pennsylvania  and  Delaware 

These  two  colonies  may  well  be  considered  together.  They 
were  originally  one  until  1702,  and  afterward  showed  little 
difference  in  their  treatment  of  religious  matters.  The  col- 
ony owed  its  origin  to  the  benevolent,  broad-minded,  and 
Penn.  politic  William  Penn.  As  a  Quaker,  he  was  devoted  to  the 

cause  of  religious  liberty  and  desired  to  make  for  it  a  secure 
abiding  place.  As  a  statesman,  he  was  well  fitted  for  the 
task  of  founding  and  guiding  a  commonwealth.  Becoming 
personally  interested  in  American  colonization  by  the  pur- 
chase of  West  Jersey  in  1674,  his  ambition  expanded  to  the 
creation  of  a  distinct  and  larger  colony,  of  which  himself 
should  be  the  sole  proprietor.  Though  a  Quaker  of  very 
decided  type,  he  was  yet  a  friend  of  Charles  II.  and  his 
brother  James,  and  through  this  friendship  found  easy  work 
in  obtaining  from  the  king  the  charter  creating  the  province 
of  Pennsylvania,  to  which  the  duke  of  York  added  by  gift 
that  part  of  his  own  American  possessions,  which  had  received 
the  name  of  Delaware. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  King  Charles  was  aware  of 
Penn's  purpose  to  establish  religious  liberty  in  the  colony,  or, 


THE  FREE   COLONIES  441 

at  least,  of  his  desire  to  retain  in  his  own  power  the  direction 
of  the  colonial  attitude  on  matters  of  religion.  Thus  the 
charter,  which  was  given  in  1681,  makes  no  attempt  to  decide  Charter, 
anything  in  regard  thereto.  There  is  no  clause  of  Church 
establishment,  and  no  provision  for  liberty  of  conscience. 
The  only  allusion  to  the  Church  is  the  stipulation  that,  "  if 
any  of  the  inhabitants  to  the  number  of  Twenty  signify  in 
writing  to  the  bishop  of  London  their  desire  for  a  preacher, 
such  preacher  or  preachers  as  may  be  sent  by  him  shall  be 
allowed  to  reside  and  exercise  their  function  in  the  colony, 
without  any  deniall  or  molestacon  whatsoever." 1 

2  Penn's  avowed  object  in  his  public  "Address"  was  to 
make  a  "  holy  experiment,"  to  found  a  commonwealth  on  the 
corner-stone  of  freedom.  It  was  like  the  "  lively  experiment "  Experiment. 
of  Roger  Williams,  except  that  the  Quaker's  vision  of  free- 
dom was  somewhat  narrower  than  that  of  the  great  founder 
of  Rhode  Island.  By  a  singular  infelicity  of  statement  Penn 
declared  to  his  friends  his  desire  "  to  establish  a  precedent  in 
government,  and  to  furnish  an  example."  That  precedent 
had  already  been  existent  for  forty  years  in  the  colony  of 
Williams,  on  which  Penn's  expression  was  an  unjust  reflec- 
tion, not  to  be  fully  explained  by  the  early  disorders  in  Rhode 
Island  by  reason  of  the  heterogeneous  character  of  the  early 
settlers.  But  Penn's  addiction  to  the  cause  of  liberty  was 
true  and  life-long.  For  it  he  had  suffered,  and  for  this  colo- 
nizing experiment  he  ventured  his  all.  "We  must  give  the 
liberty  we  ask,"  he  said.  "  We  cannot  be  false  to  our  princi- 
ples. We  would  have  none  to  suffer  for  dissent  on  any 
hand."  "I  abhor  two  principles  in  religion,"  wrote  Penn  to 
a  friend,  "  and  pity  them  that  own  them;  the  first  is  obedience 
to  authority  without  conviction ;  and  the  other  is  destroying 
them  that  differ  from  me  for  God's  sake.  Such  a  religion  is 
without  judgment,  though  not  without  teeth." 


1  Pennsylvania  Charter  and  Laws,  p.  89. 

2  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  I,  170  j  Bancroft,  United  States,  II, 
361-396. 


442  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

These  views  Penn  endeavored  to  express  in  his  regulations 
for  the  new  colony,  though  not  without  some  regrettable 
restrictions.  On  receipt  of  his  charter,  he  composed  in  1682, 
while  still  in  England,  and  there  published,  a  "Frame  of 
Government,"1  whereof  the  Preface  recites:  "We  have  to 
Frame  of  the  best  of  our  skill  contrived  and  composed  the  frame  and 
government.  ^aw§  Q£  ^-g  gOvernment?  to  the  great  end  of  all  government, 
viz.:  to  support  power  in  reverence  with  the  people,  and  to 
secure  the  people  from  abuse  of  power ;  that  they  may  be  free 
by  their  just  obedience,  and  the  magistrates  honorable  for 
their  just  administration;  for  liberty  without  obedience  is 
confusion,  and  obedience  without  liberty  is  slavery."  Noth- 
ing, surely,  could  be  finer  or  more  just  than  this  declaration 
and  definition. 

There  is  something  of  a  departure  from  its  broad  principle 
in  the  religious  sections  of  the  frame  of  government.  These 
are : 2  — 

Religious  "  34.   That  all  Treasurers,  Judges,  Masters  of  Rolls,  Sher- 

restrictions.  j^  justices  of  the  Peace,  and  other  officers  and  persons 
whatsoever,  relating  to  courts  or  trials  of  causes,  or  any  other 
service  in  the  government ;  and  all  Members  elected  to  ser- 
vice in  the  provincial  Council  and  General  Assembly,  and 
all  that  have  right  to  elect  such  Members,  shall  be  such  as 
profess  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

"  35.  That  all  persons  living  in  this  province,  who  confess 
and  acknowledge  the  one  Almighty  and  Eternal  God  to  be 
the  Creator,  Upholder,  and  Ruler  of  the  world;  and  that 
hold  themselves  obliged  in  conscience  to  live  peaceably  and 
justly  in  civil  society,  shall  in  no  ways  be  molested  or  prej- 
udiced for  their  religious  profession  or  practice  in  matters 
of  faith  and  worship;  nor  shall  they  be  compelled,  at  any 
time,  to  frequent  or  maintain  any  religious  worship,  place,  or 
ministry  whatever." 

The  first  colonial  assembly  met  at  Chester  in  1682,  and 

1  Pennsylvania  Laws ;  Proud,  Appendix. 

2  Charter  and  Laws,  p.  102. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  443 

enacted,  "  The  Great  Law  or  Body  of  Laws  " 1  of  which  the  Assembly  of 
first  chapter  was  "  Of  Religion."     Its  prescriptions  were  in  1682> 
harmony  with   those  of  Penn's  composition,  just  cited,  but 
contain   peculiarities  and  additions  of  a  unique  character. 
The  chapter  begins :  — 

"Almighty  God,  being  the  only  Lord  of  Conscience,  "Great 
father  of  Lights  and  Spirits,  and  the  author  as  well  as  Law-" 
object  of  all  divine  knowledge,  faith,  and  Worship,  who 
only  can  enlighten  the  mind  and  persuade  and  convince 
the  understanding  of  people:  In  due  reverence  to  his 
Sovereignty  over  the  Souls  of  Mankind,  Be  it  enacted, 
That  no  person,  now  or  at  any  time  hereafter,  Living 
in  this  Province,  who  shall  confess  and  acknowledge  one 
Almighty  God  to  be  the  Creator,  Upholder  and  Ruler  of 
the  world;  And  who  shall  profess  him,  or  herself,  Obliged 
in  Conscience  to  Live  peaceably  and  quietly  under  the  civil 
government,  shall  in  any  case  be  molested  or  prejudiced 
for  his,  or  her,  conscientious  persuasion  or  practice.  Nor 
shall  hee  or  shee  at  any  time  be  compelled  to  frequent  or 
maintain  anie  religious  worship,  place,  or  Ministry  what- 
ever, contrary  to  his  or  her  mind;  but  shall  freely  and 
fully  enjoy,  his  or  her,  Christian  liberty  in  that  respect, 
without  any  Interruption  or  reflection.  And  if  any  per- 
son shall  deride  or  abuse  any  other  for  his  or  her  different 
persuasion  or  practice  in  matters  of  religion,  such  person 
shall  be  lookt  upon  as  a  Disturber  of  the  peace  and  be 
punished  accordingly. 

"  But  to  the  end,  That  Looseness,  irreligion,  and  Atheism 
may  not  Creep  in  under  any  pretense  of  Conscience  in  this 
Province,  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  according  to  the 
example  of  the  primitive  Christians,  and  for  the  ease  of 
the  Creation,  Every  first  day  of  the  week,  called  the 
Lord's  day,  People  shall  abstain  from  their  usual  and  com- 
mon toil  and  labor,  That  whether  Masters,  Parents,  Chil- 
dren, or  servants,  they  may  the  better  dispose  themselves 
1  Charter  and  Laws,  p.  109. 


444  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

to  read  the  Scriptures  of  truth  at  home,  or  frequent  such 
meetings  for  religious  worship  as  may  best  sute  their  re- 
spective persuasions . ' ' 

Furthermore,  the  assembly  of  1682  defined  in  Chapter  II. 
the  qualifications  for  office  and  the  franchise,  requiring  that 
all  civil  officers  of  the  Province,  all  deputies  to  the  assembly, 
and  all  electors  of  deputies,  "shall  be  such  as  profess  and 
declare  that  they  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Saviour  of 
the  world."  The  assembly  declared  these  laws  to  be  funda- 
mental ;  and  when  they  were  annulled  by  William  and  Mary 
in  1693,  the  assembly  immediately  reenacted  them. 

From  these  statutes  alone  judging,  it  is  evident  that  the 
boasted  liberty  of  Pennsylvania  was  not  so  broad  as  has  usu- 
ally been  supposed.  In  the  colonies  its  restrictions  were 
surpassed  for  narrowness  only  by  Massachusetts,  Virginia, 
and  Maryland  in  the  latter  half  of  her  colonial  government. 
According  to  the  fundamental  law  of  Pennsylvania,  a  Jew 
or  any  sort  of  a  non-Christian  Theist  could  live  in  the  prov- 
ince, but  neither  hold  office  nor  vote.  For  the  Atheist  or 
Deist  not  even  a  right  of  residence  was  conceded  by  the 
fundamental  law,  the  expressed  desire  of  which  was  to  pre- 
vent atheism  and  irreligion  from  "  creeping  in."  A  notable 
feature  of  the  law,  differing  greatly  from  other  colonial 
prescriptions,  was  the  complete  enfranchisement  of  Roman 
Romanists.  Catholics.  Under  this  early  constitution  a  Romanist  could 
both  vote  and  hold  office.  This  exceptional  favor  was  due 
to  the  sentiment  of  Penn,  who  in  England  in  his  argu- 
ments and  influence  had  grouped  the  Romanists  with  the 
Quakers,  as  classes  from  whom  civil  disabilities  should  be 
removed. 

This  liberty  of  the  Romanist,  however,  was  not  long  con- 
tinued. It  was  too  broad  for  a  province  depending  largely 
on  royal  favor,  and  too  much  in  opposition  to  the  toleration 
act  of  England.  The  restriction  of  it  was  not  in  the  first 
instance  imposed  by  colonial  statute,  or  in  any  new  definition 
as  to  the  quality  of  settlers.  It  came  as  a  natural  consequence 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  445 

of  orders  from  England  prescribing  the  form  of  oath  to  be  Test  oath, 
taken  by  office-holders.  These  orders  were  from  the  govern- 
ment of  William  and  Mary,  and  required  that  the  form  of 
oath  used  in  England,  under  the  toleration  act  should  be 
used  also  in  Pennsylvania.1  This  order  was  made  in  1693 
and  was  repeated  in  1701.  The  government  of  Queen  Anne 
in  1703  again  repeated  the  order  and  embraced  "judicial  and 
all  other  offices."2  The  oath  was  designed  in  England  as 
a  test,  discriminating  against  Romanists,  Jews,  and  Unita- 
rians. It  expressly  abjured  the  Roman  doctrines  of  transub- 
stantiation,  the  adoration  of  Mary  or  other  saints,  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass ;  and  expressly  acknowledged  the  Triune 
Godhead  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  divine 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

Of  course,  the  oath  excluded  from  office  every  Roman  Cath- 
olic, Socinian,  and  Jew,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  a 
condition  for  the  right  of  suffrage.  The  order  imposing  it 
was  not  grateful  to  the  colonial  legislature,  or  to  the  pro- 
prietor. Much  consultation  was  given  to  it,  but  the  situa- 
tion of  affairs  seemed  to  require  submission.  Penn  was  in 
England  at  the  time  and  in  hiding.  His  relations  to  James 
II.  exposed  him  to  the  suspicion  of  William,  while  his  recent 
actions  in  regard  to  the  imprisoned  Quakers  had  brought 
upon  him  the  maledictions  of  the  people.  In  order  to  set 
them  free,  there  was  appeal  made  to  the  famous  "  Declaration 
of  Indulgence  "  issued  by  James  in  1687,  a  declaration  exe- 
crated by  every  English  Protestant  as  an  entering  wedge  for 
the  introduction  of  Romanism.  According  to  the  general 
Protestant  view  it  was  better  to  suffer  persecution  than  to 
accept  liberty  through  such  an  instrument.3  Penn  and  his  Penn  in 
liberated  brethren  became  marks  for  passionate  denunciation.  England- 
"  Papist,"  "  Jesuit  in  disguise,"  were  among  the  milder  terms 
flung  at  Penn's  devoted  head ;  and  not  long  after  the  acces- 

1  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  II,  68.  2  Ibid.,  II,  89-96. 

8  Pennsylvania  Historical  Magazine,  IX ;  Stilte  on  Heligious  Tests  in 
Pennsylvania- 


446  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

sion  of  William  he  was  thrown  into  prison  for  several  months. 
The  action  against  him  went  to  the  extreme  of  a  trial  for 
treason,  which  resulted  in  acquittal  and  discharge  from  prison. 
But  for  some  months  afterward  he  found  it  wise  to  retire 
from  public  observation.  While  thus  in  retirement  his 
enemies  prevailed  on  the  government  to  set  aside  the  charter 
of  Pennsylvania  and  to  join  its  government  to  that  of  New 
York.  Instructions  to  that  end  were  issued  to  Fletcher,  the 
governor  of  the  latter  province,  under  date  of  1693,  and  car- 
ried the  order  imposing  the  test  oath. 

Immediately  on  Fletcher's  assumption  of  the  government, 
the  general  assembly  addressed  to  him  a  petition,  reciting 
the  provincial  laws  already  in  force  and  desiring  his  ratifica- 
tion thereof.  Among  them  were  the  religious  provisions  just 
quoted.  The  governor's  reply  was  a  proclamation  requiring 
all  "officers  of  the  province  ...  to  put  in  execution  the 
above  said  laws,  until  their  majesties'  pleasure  shall  be  more 
fully  known." l  This  ratification  did  not  do  away  with  the 
test,  which  was  still  required,  though  inconsistent  with  the 
"Laws." 

But  this  union  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  was  very 
brief.  Penn  in  some  way  found  means  of  propitiating  Will- 
iam, who  in  1694  restored  to  him  the  charter  and  government 
of  the  province.;  and  the  reinstated  proprietor  sent  out  as 
governor  his  cousin,  William  Markham.  But  Penn  could 
not  venture  at  once  on  setting  aside  the  test,  and  accordingly 
Legislature  the  first  assembly  (1696)  under  Markham,  in  reestablishing 
teds°tPtS  the  the  proprietary  government,  passed  "  A  New  Act  of  Settle- 
ment," which  required  the  religious  tests  of  the  toleration 
act  to  be  administered  to  all  office-holders. 

The  situation  of  Penn  was  difficult,  and  it  is  clear  that 
his  assent  to  such  legislation  was  under  a  compulsion  of  cir- 
cumstances, at  the  time  irresistible.  As  Stille  says,  "The 
more  we  study  his  life  and  career,  the  grander  and  more 
heroic  his  character  becomes."  He  had  not,  indeed,  that 

1  Pennsylvania  Historical  Magazine,  IX,  188-220. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  447 

broad  catholicity  of  view  which  made  Roger  Williams  the 
most  unique  figure  in  colonial  history,  but  he  was  far 
removed  from  that  narrowness  which  made  the  boasted  tol- 
eration of  England  an  instrument  of  oppression.  Evidently 
he  considered  the  concession  of  1696  as  only  a  temporary  sop 
to  Cerberus,  for  on  his  own  return  to  the  colony  in  1699  he 
set  himself  to  put  away  the  hated  restriction.  This  effort 
he  introduced  by  a  series  of  laws,  making  a  fourth  and 
final  "frame  of  government,"  among  which  were  two  bear- 
ing on  the  question  of  religion.  The  one  was  an  "Act 
concerning  Liberty  of  Conscience  "  ;  and  the  other  an  "  Act 
in  regard  to  Attests  of  certain  officers."  These  were  brought 
in  and  passed  by  the  legislature  in  1700,  and  their  effort 
was  to  restore  the  definitions  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
1682. 

The  news  of  this  action  was  ill-received  in  England,  where 
the  queen  in  council  in  1702  annulled  it  and  sent  to  Penn- 
sylvania peremptory  orders,  that  the  religious  tests  of  the 
toleration  act  should  be  restored,  and  furthermore  that  every 
person  then  in  office  should  subscribe  the  test  on  penalty 
of  losing  his  place.  To  this  order  the  colonial  officers  at 
first  demurred,  but  afterward  yielded,  to  Penn's  great 
indignation. 

In  an  evil  hour  and  with  wrong  judgment  Penn,  on  the 
threat  of  adverse  action  in  London,  had  taken  himself  thither 
in  hopes  of  conciliating  the  government  and  so  forestalling 
the  order.  But  this  he  was  unable  to  do,  and  was  absent 
from  his  province  at  the  very  moment  when  his  presence  was 
the  most  needed,  in  the  acute  crisis  of  the  cause  which  he  had 
most  at  heart.  Had  he  been  on  the  ground  he  might  have 
braced  up  the  spirits  of  his  colonists  to  resist  the  royal 
demand.  As  it  was,  the  cause  of  religious  liberty  was  then 
lost  in  Pennsylvania,  never  in  colonial  times  to  reassert 
itself.  In  1703  the  entire  assembly  followed  the  example  of 
the  officers  and  subscribed  the  test,  and  in  1705  passed  an 
act  legalizing  by  colonial  legislation  all  the  religious  tests 


448  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

demanded  by  the  queen's  orders !  This  act  remained  in  force 
until  1776.  Thus  the  Quakers  went  back  on  their  record  as 
champions  for  human  freedom,  and  established  for  their 
chosen  colony  the  principle,  which  elsewhere  they  had  re- 
sisted, that  the  full  enjoyment  of  civil  rights  should  be  con- 
fined to  professors  of  a  specified  religious  creed. 

At  the  same  time  with  this  submission  the  legislature  took 
Quaker         special  action  in  relation  to  affirmation  by  the  Quakers.     The 
affirmation.    new  Q^fa  seemed  to  demand  a  reassertion  of  their  privileges. 
This  act  for  the  relief  of  Quakers  was  set  aside  in  1705  by 
the  queen  in  council,  "  not  with  design  to  deprive  Quakers 
of  that  privilege,  but  solely  on  account  of  its  making  the 
punishment  for  false  affirming  greater  than  the  law  of  Eng- 
land required  for  false  swearing." 1 

The  Quaker  attitude  toward  oaths  was  a  constant  annoy- 
ance to  English  authorities,  some  of  whom  thought  that  it 
portended  ruin  to  the  social  fabric.  This  is  illustrated  in  a 
letter  from  Lord  Cornbury  to  the  board  of  trade  in  1703 :  "  I 
have  some  letters  from  Philadelphia,  which  inform  me  that 
they  have  lately  held  Courts  of  Judicature  there,  in  which 
they  have  condemned  people  to  death  by  Judges  that  are 
Quakers,  and  neither  Judges  nor  Jury  under  any  oath. 
These  proceedings  have  very  much  startled  the  Gentlemen 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  Pennsylvania."2  Not  until 
1725  could  a  law  covering  the  matter  be  made  satisfactory 
to  both  the  Quakers  and  the  king.  In  1743  religious  socie- 
ties, other  than  Quakers,  were  admitted  to  the  benefit  of  the 

1  Proud,  History  of  Pennsylvania,  II,  190. 

But  whatever  happened  as  to  the  general  law  concerning  oaths,  the 
Quakers  were  bound  to  take  care  of  their  brethren  and  were  ready  to  inter- 
fere with  legislative  action  for  the  benefit  of  any  oppressed  individual.  Thus, 
in  1704  (Records,  II,  180)  Joseph  Yard  of  Philadelphia  complained  to  the 
council  that  the  county  court  had  fined  him  forty  shillings  for  refusing  the 
oath.  He  prayed  for  relief,  saying  that  he  "could  not  take  one,  nor  had 
ever  taken  one  in  his  Life."  The  action  of  the  council  ordered  the  fine  re- 
mitted and  the  complainant  to  be  "  forthwith  Reimbursed  of  the  same." 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  IV,  1045. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  449 

act ;  and  in  1772  its  relief  was  extended  to  "  any  persons  " 
having  scruples  against  oaths.1 

The  test  oath  was  also  administered  to  persons  seeking  to 
be  naturalized  in  the  colony,  and  the  use  of  it  was  frequently  Naturaiiza- 
spoken  of  as  "taking  the  test."  Thus  it  appears  both  in  the  tion' 
records  and  in  the  certificates  given  to  the  persons  making 
oath.  Once  the  phrase  occurs  in  relation  to  two  members 
admitted  to  the  assembly,  who  made  "profession  of  the 
Christian  belief  and  took  the  test." 2  Similar  notes  appear 
about  persons  naturalized,  as  "having  taken  the  oath 
appointed  by  act  of  parliament  and  subscribed  the  test"; 
"having  subscribed  the  Declaration"  (against  Roman  doc- 
trines) ;  "  having  taken  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
within  three  months."  3  This  last  was  so  late  as  1765.4 

So  far,  then,  as  terms  are  concerned,  Pennsylvania  was 
much  less  liberal  than  most  of  the  colonies,  and  is  not  to  be 
classed  with  Rhode  Island  on  her  broad  platform  of  full 
religious  liberty.  The  one  point  of  close  resemblance  is  in 
the  absence  of  a  religious  establishment.  Pennsylvania 
never  made  any  attempts  toward  establishing  a  Church. 
This  fact  makes  the  rigid  insistence  on  religious  tests  one  of 
the  strangest  things  in  colonial  history,  for  in  all  other  cases 
of  such  insistence  the  oath  has  been  in  the  interest  of  some 
State-Church.  With  the  Quakers  of  Pennsylvania  its  de- 
mand was  in  the  interests  simply  of  Protestantism.  Protes- 
tantism was  established,  in  a  sense.  There  at  least,  if  not 

1  Pennsylvania  Records,  IV,  629 ;  X,  42.  2  Ibid.,  I,  538. 

»  Archives,  I,  118  ;  III,  692  ;  IV,  243. 

4  Another  form  of  oath  was  devised  by  the  assembly  to  be  taken  by  the 
Palatines,  who  immigrated  to  Pennsylvania  between  1720  and  1760  in  so 
large  numbers  that  the  local  authorities  became  alarmed  lest  the  foreigners 
might  "steal  the  Province  from  his  sacred  Majesty,  King  George."  It  is 
noticeable  that  this  Palatine  oath  makes  no  reference  whatever  to  religious 
matters,  and  pledges  only  allegiance  to  the  English  colonial  government. 
Even  the  requirement  of  the  fundamental  law  as  to  belief  in  God  and  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  incorporated.  (Colonial  fiecords,  III,  283.)  Probably,  this 
Palatine  oath  may  have  been  added  to  the  other,  but  the  fact  does  not  so 
appear  on  the  record. 
*0 


450 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


No  persecu- 
tion. 


Disarming 
Romanists. 


elsewhere,  the  Quakers  shared  the  general  view  of  Protestant 
Christendom,  that  only  Christians  of  the  Protestant  persua- 
sion were  fit  for  public  office  or  citizenship. 

One  noticeable  attendant  upon  this  legal  supremacy  of 
Protestantism  was,  so  far  as  the  records  and  archives  show, 
an  entire  absence  of  outspoken  opposition  to  its  principle. 
Objection  seems  to  have  contented  itself  with  the  first  official 
demur  of  1705,  after  which  the  people  rested  in  quiet  content 
that  Romanist,  Jew,  and  Socinian  should  be  denied  all  civil 
rights,  until  the  Revolution  came  and  exhibited  the  mean- 
ness of  that  rule.  But  even  then  Pennsylvania  could  not 
shake  herself  loose  from  all  restrictive  measures.  Nor  yet  in 
this  year  of  grace  1902  has  she  fully  done  it. 

All  through  the  seventy  years  of  proscription  no  public 
remonstrances  were  heard.  None  seem  to  have  been  excited 
by  an  invidious  law  of  1730  for  the  "  Protection  of  Church 
Property,"  which  restricted  its  benefits  to  Protestant  Churches. 

It  needs,  however,  to  be  noted  that  Pennsylvania  never 
proceeded  against  persons.  There  were  no  instances  of 
persecution,  or  of  personal  hardships  for  religion's  sake,  unless 
exclusion  from  office  can  be  so  termed.  Men  were  not  hin- 
dered the  free  exercise  of  what  religion  they  preferred.  Stille 
quotes  from  Hildreth  the  statement,  that  the  Roman  Church 
of  Saint  Joseph  in  Philadelphia  was  the  only  place  in  the 
thirteen  colonies  where  the  mass  was  allowed  to  be  publicly 
celebrated  prior  to  the  Revolution.  In  theory,  indeed,  Penn- 
sylvania, after  1700,  lagged  behind  even  the  once  theocratic 
Massachusetts,  but  in  her  treatment  of  persons  we  find  no 
harshness.  During  the  Seven  Years'  War  with  the  French 
and  Indians  the  assembly  passed  a  law  for  disarming  Roman 
Catholics,  but  the  motive  of  the  act  was  not  religious  oppres- 
sion, but  a  fear  lest  the  religious  sympathy  of  the  Romanists 
might  cause  them  to  aid  the  French.  The  fear  was  the  result 
of  an  unjust  suspicion,  and  the  law,  due  to  a  moment  of  panic, 
was  never  put  in  force. 

Of  all  the  religious  legislation  in  the  colonies  nothing  was 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  451 

more  absurd  than  that  against  Roman  Catholics.  One  would 
suppose  that  the  Roman  Church  was  a  constant  and  threat- 
ening foe  to  colonial  institutions.  The  fact  was  far  other- 
wise. With  the  opening  of  the  Revolution,  it  is  estimated 
that  there  were  not  more  than  thirteen  hundred  Romanists 
between  Canada  and  Florida.  And  this  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  the  effect  of  "  anti-papist "  laws.  For  some  other 
reason,  not  clearly  discernible,  the  people  of  that  faith  were 
not  drawn  toward  America.  The  opening  of  Maryland,  as  a 
refuge  for  them  from  the  proscriptions  of  England,  did  not 
attract  many.  At  the  beginning  of  that  colony,  the  majority 
of  settlers  were  Protestants,  and  in  the  following  years  the 
disproportion  increased  steadily,  so  that  by  1700  the  Roman- 
ists were  less  than  one-sixth  of  the  inhabitants.  With  all 
circumstances  to  attract,  and  with  the  sure  prospect  of  pos- 
sessing the  controlling  power,  the  Roman  Catholics  declined 
to  come  in  any  larger  numbers  to  their  own  colony.  In  the 
face  of  such  a  fact,  and  in  face  of  the  still  more  remarkable 
fact  that,  during  the  half  century  in  which  the  Romanists 
governed  Maryland,  they  were  not  guilty  of  a  single  act  of 
religious  oppression,  the  legislation  against  them  was  specially 
unwarranted  and  base.  In  the  Maryland  of  the  eighteenth 
century  it  was  the  voice  of  a  monstrous  ingratitude.  In  the 
other  colonies  it  was  so  needless  as  to  be  ridiculous. 

Of  course,  we  recognize  it  as  but  a  reflection  from  the  bale- 
ful fires  that  burned  so  long  in  England ;  and  much  of  the 
blame  for  it  must  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  English  govern- 
ment, insisting  without  reason  that  the  distinctions,  which 
meant  so  much  in  English  law  and  society,  should  be  perpet- 
uated in  America,  where  they  could  not  properly  apply. 
This  was  specially  the  case  in  Pennsylvania.  The  Quakers 
would  never  have  moved  such  restrictive  measures,  if  left 
to  themselves ;  and  it  is  their  peculiar  disgrace  that,  unlike 
themselves,  they  quailed  before  the  voice  of  regal  authority 
demanding  an  action  which  all  their  professed  principles 
detested.  In  so  judging,  however,  it  needs  always  to  be 


452  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

remembered  that  this  invidious  legislation  was  never  followed 
by  oppression  of  persons  for  their  religion,  and  that,  while 
Romanists  were  excluded  from  civil  rights,  yet  in  the  private 
and  public  exercise  of  their  faith  they  were  possessed  in 
Pennsylvania  of  larger  liberty  than  in  any  other  colony. 
In  this  regard  they  were  perfectly  free.  No  law  "  excepted 
Papists  "  from  the  category  of  intending  inhabitants,  or  made 
the  colony  dangerous  ground  for  "  Popish  Priest "  or  Jesuit. 
Coming  to  Pennsylvania,  they  were  unmolested,  and  seemed 
content  to  rest  under  the  civil  ban,  so  long  as  their  religious 
worship  was  not  forbidden  or  hindered. 

Delaware.  With  regard  to  DELAWARE  after  its  separation  from 
Pennsylvania,  it  only  remains  to  note  that  its  records  show 
much  less  concern  about  religious  affairs  than  those  of  the 
parent  colony.  The  law  of  1700  in  regard  to  naturalization 
made  necessary  only  a  "solemn  engagement  to  be  true  and 
faithful  to  the  King  and  the  Proprietary,"  without  any  refer- 
ence to  religion.  This  was  passed  two  years  before  the  separa- 
tion, but  seems  to  have  remained  in  force  in  Delaware ;  for  the 
"  Laws  of  Delaware  "  contain  no  statute  similar  to  the  Penn- 
sylvania act,  which  subjected  would-be  citizens  to  the  tolera- 
tion test.  Strangely  enough,  by  a  law  of  1704  the  Delaware 
legislature  required  that  test  to  be  taken  by  "  attorneys  and 
solicitors,"  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  oath  touching  their 
duties  as  members  of  court,  but  required  it  from  such  officers 
only.  This  was,  doubtless,  modified  by  the  act  of  1719, 
which  required  that  "  Justices,  judges,  inquests,  and  witnesses 
(should)  qualify  themselves  according  to  their  conscientious 
persuasions  respectively."1 

It  would  appear  that  the  pressure  from  England  on  the 
legislation  of  Delaware  was  much  less  than  upon  that  of  Penn- 
sylvania, for  the  laws  contain  but  one  instance  of  discrimi- 
nation against  Romanists.  This  was  an  act  — 17  George  II. 
—  empowering  Protestant  Churches  and  societies  to  receive 
and  hold  real  estate.2  The  original  requirements  of  the 
1  Laws  of  Delaware,  pp.  53,  66,  66.  a  Z&itt,  p.  271. 


THE  FREE  COLONIES  453 

fundamental  law,  confining  the  franchise  and  office  to  per- 
sons who  believed  "  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,"  was  still  in  force  in  Delaware  after 
the  setting  up  of  its  own  colonial  government ;  but  beyond 
this  Delaware  did  not  much  concern  itself  with  inquiring 
into  men's  religious  opinions,  and  I  find  no  instance  of  moles- 
tation for  conscience'  sake. 


VIII 

COLONIAL  BISHOPS 

ONE  of  the  most  interesting  of  questions  touching  the 
colonial  Church  and  State  was  that  created  by  the  demand 
for  an  "American  Episcopate."  Considered  simply  as  a 
matter  belonging  to  the  constitution  and  order  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  colonies,  it  would  find  no  proper  place  in 
this  treatise.  That  alone  is  to-day  the  significance  of  the 
episcopate  in  this  country,  with  which  the  civil  government 
and  other  Churches  have  no  legitimate  concern.  The  case 
was  far  different  in  the  colonial  period,  when  it  was  impossi- 
ble to  conceive  of  the  creation  of  an  episcopate  without  gov- 
ernmental action,  or  of  its  existence  without  more  or  less 
dependence  on  the  civil  power.  Against  such  aspect  were 
arrayed  all  the  instincts  for  independence,  all  the  jealousies 
of  other  Churches,  and  all  the  fears  of  those  colonies  in  which 
existed  a  religious  establishment  other  than  the  Church  of 
England.  The  cry  for  bishops  began  early  in  the  period, 
grew  more  and  more  urgent  as  the  years  went  by,  caused  the 
most  furious  and  bitter  debate  in  colonial  history,  and  un- 
doubtedly had  large  influence,  especially  in  the  middle  colo- 
nies, in  deciding  the  popular  attitude  on  the  question  of 
political  independence. 

Need  of  The  demand  for  colonial  bishops  grew  naturally  out  of  the 

Bishops.  necessity  of  the  case.  Episcopacy  without  a  bishop  was  an 
anomaly.  It  existed  at  a  decided  disadvantage,  shorn  of  its 
proper  and  needed  facilities  for  the  right  prosecution  of  its 
work.  The  jurisdiction  of  a  bishop  in  England  was  too 
remote  for  the  healthful  conduct  of  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
Confirmation  was  impossible,  ordination  only  obtainable  at 

454 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  455 

the  risk  and  expense  of  an  ocean  voyage,  and  discipline  desti- 
tute of  any  force.  The  complaints  of  the  situation  on  these 
scores  were  abundantly  justified,  and  the  history  of  the  Church 
of  England  in  the  colonies  is  full  of  proof,  that  this  lack  of 
episcopal  authority,  the  essential  principle  of  its  polity, 
resulted  in  most  serious  damage. 

There  was,  of  course,  something  of  a  parallel  in  the  situa- 
tion of  the  civil  government,  over  which  the  supreme  juris- 
diction vested  in  the  king,  to  whom  appeals  came  from  the 
colonies,  and  whose  order  was  competent  to  set  aside  colonial 
legislation  and  to  correct  abuses.  But  the  resemblance  was 
only  superficial,  for  the  king  was  represented  by  governors 
and  other  colonial  officials,  while  all  the  machinery  of  local 
government  and  authority  was  ample  to  direct  in  all  ordinary 
affairs  of  state.  In  the  colonial  Episcopal  Church  there  was 
nothing  to  parallel  that  local  government.  It  was  destitute 
of  all  spiritual  authority.  Some  of  the  governors  were 
empowered  to  induct  ministers  and  to  remove  for  scandal- 
ous conduct,  but  their  action  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  was  not 
expressive  of  spiritual  aim  and  power,  and  was  too  frequently 
dictated  by  personal  or  party  motives. 

A  much  closer  likeness  to  this  crippled  condition  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  existed  in  the  Reformed  Church,  by  rea-  Reformed 
son  of  its  subjection  to  the  classis  of  Amsterdam.  This  sub- 
jection continued  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  under  a 
constantly  increasing  sense  of  its  disadvantages,  until  it 
became  an  intolerable  burden.  So  far  as  ordination  and  cleri- 
cal discipline  were  concerned,  the  Reformed  Church  was  situ- 
ated precisely  as  was  the  Church  of  England  in  the  colonies. 
In  the  first  colonial  generation  the  situation  was  but  natural. 
The  ministers  coming  to  New  Netherland  were  all  of  German 
or  Dutch  birth  and  education,  and  properly  qualified  and 
ordained  before  they  crossed  the  sea.  But  as  the  colony 
grew  and  Churches  multiplied,  and  as  candidates  of  American 
birth  desired  to  enter  the  ministry,  the  necessity  of  resort  to 
Holland  for  ordination  became  a  burden  of  no  small  weight. 


456  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Nor  did  the  conquest  of  New  Netherlands  by  the  English 
make  any  difference  in  this  matter.  The  youth  of  New  York 
or  New  Jersey,  who  would  enter  the  Reformed  ministry, 
must  go  to  Holland  for  sacred  orders.  Happily  for  the 
Church,  the  necessity  for  ministerial  discipline  rarely  arose, 
as  there  was  in  the  colonies  no  ecclesiastical  authority  what- 
ever to  call  a  delinquent  Reformed  minister  to  account. 

We  have  already  narrated  in  our  sketch  of  New  York  the 
demand  made  by  Governor  Andros  on  two  Dutch  ministers 
to  ordain  a  candidate.  To  do  this  they  organized  an  irregular 
classis,  which  their  superior,  the  classis  of  Amsterdam,  refused 
to  recognize,  though,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  charity,  it 
ratified  the  ordination.1 

Yet  with  this  close  resemblance  on  ecclesiastical  lines  the 
Difference  difference  between  the  two  was  radical.  The  question  in  the 
Reformed  Church  was  purely  one  of  Church  order,  as  affect- 
ing the  case  of  discharging  its  spiritual  function.  With  this 
neither  the  government  nor  the  general  public  had  any  con- 

1  It  is  appropriate  to  briefly  notice  here,  as  really  illustrative  of  our  theme, 
the  issue  of  affairs  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  (Corwin,  Manual, 
1869,  pp.  6-9;  Demarest,  History  of  Reformed  Church,  pp.  86-95.)  The 
first  ordination  on  American  soil  with  approval  of  the  classis  of  Amsterdam 
took  place  in  1736,  when  the  classis  authorized  two  clergymen  to  ordain 
John  Schuyler.  In  the  following  year  a  plan  for  a  coetus,  or  association,  to 
remain  subordinate  to  the  classis,  was  drawn  up  by  some  of  the  ministers  and 
sent  to  Holland,  but  waited  there  for  nine  years  before  the  approval  of  the 
classis  was  obtained.  There  was  sharp  difference  in  the  colonial  Church  on 
the  question.  A  party  was  formed  for  separation  from  the  mother  Church, 
which  got  possession  of  the  coetus  and  ventured  to  ordain  on  its  own  author- 
ity. The  more  conservative  elements  opposed  such  action,  and  a  bitter 
struggle  arose  which  lasted  from  1753  to  1771.  Through  the  efforts  of  John 
H.  Livingston  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  in  Holland  were  induced  to  con- 
sent to  separation  and  to  an  independent  organization  in  the  colonies  ;  and 
the  Reformed  Protestant  Dutch  Church  in  America  was  in  1772  organized 
with  a  synod  and  five  classes.  This  was  only  twelve  years  before  the  conse- 
cration of  the  first  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country.  This 
little  excursus  may  serve  to  show  that  the  Episcopal  Church  was  not  the  only 
Church  in  America  which  suffered  because  of  organic  relation  to  a  mother 
Church  across  the  sea,  and  to  that  extent  robs  the  pleas  of  the  English  cler- 
gymen of  their  claim  of  exceptional  hardship. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  457 

cern.  So  far  as  society  at  large,  or  other  Churches,  or  legis- 
latures cared,  the  Reformed  Church  might  have  organized  a 
dozen  classes  independent  of  Holland,  without  a  single  word 
of  protest  from  outside.  For  this  reason  the  matter  finds 
place  only  in  the  history  of  the  Church  itself,  and  of  it  the 
general  history  of  the  country  knows  nothing  whatever. 

It  was  far  otherwise  with  the  Episcopal  Church.  This 
was  not  the  Episcopal  Church  of  the  colonies,  but  an  integral 
portion  of  the  Church  of  England;  a  Church  created  by  act 
of  parliament  and  subject  both  for  faith  and  discipline  to  par- 
liament and  the  crown ;  its  higher  dignitaries  appointed  by 
the  crown  and  occupying  seats  in  the  house  of  lords;  sup- 
ported by  public  endowments  and  taxes;  and  possessing  a 
very  considerable  share  in  the  control  of  political  matters. 
What  such  a  Church  did,  what  was  done  for  or  in  such 
a  Church,  became  thus  a  matter  of  public  concern,  and  was 
not  confined  for  legitimate  interest  to  the  members  of  the 
Church  itself.  Every  Englishman,  be  he  Churchman  or  Dis-  Civil  status 
senter,  was  rightly  and  profoundly  interested  in  many  matters 
affecting  such  a  Church,  for  they  touched  not  only  upon  his 
religious  concerns,  but  also  upon  his  rights  as  a  citizen. 

Thus  it  was  in  England.  And  the  same  necessity  for  pub- 
lic concern  inevitably  obtained  in  the  colonies,  where  the  de- 
sire and  design  of  the  English  government  of  planting  the 
Church  of  England  as  an  establishment  of  state  had  received 
abundant  illustrations.  Without  reference  to  the  harshness 
of  the  English  Church  to  dissenters  in  England,  the  colonists 
had  many  reasons  for  public  comment  and  for  dread  of  its 
encroachments  presented  by  its  course  in  America.  They 
had  but  to  call  to  mind  the  Virginia  Church,  banishing 
Puritans  and  persecuting  Baptists ;  the  Carolina  Churchmen, 
driving  non-conformists  from  the  legislature ;  the  Maryland 
Church,  outlawing  that  Roman  Catholicism,  which  had  given 
to  it  a  kindly  welcome ;  and  the  New  York  Anglican  clergy 
exulting  in  Cornbury's  spoliation  of  Jamaica  Presbyterians, 
and  persisting  in  the  fraudulent  claim  that  the  Act  of  1693 


458  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

established  the  Church  of  England  in  their  province.  With 
such  facts  in  mind,  and  every  one  of  them  occurring  in  colonies 
where  the  English  Churchmen  were  less  than  one-fourth  of 
the  population,  it  would  have  been  the  sheerest  folly  for  the 
people  at  large  not  to  be  interested,  and  not  to  express  their 
mind  about  any  project  of  that  Church  in  all  matters  of  its 
constitution  and  of  its  relation  to  government  and  the  people. 
Much  of  the  disputation  on  the  part  of  the  English  Church- 
men expresses  surprise  that  people  outside  of  their  Church 
should  consider  their  application  for  bishops  as  a  thing  with 
which  they  had  any  right  to  intermeddle.  This  is  the  most 
amusing  thing  in  the  entire  controversy ;  for,  while  pleading 
—  and  rightly  —  that  a  bishop  was  essential  to  the  polity  and 
prosperity  of  their  Church,  they  never  fail  to  give  evidence 
that  they  still  retain  in  mind  the  purpose  and  perquisites  of 
a  state-establishment.  It  was  this  background  of  their  plea, 
which  made  the  application  a  matter  for  public  interest  and 
discussion. 

The  course  of  this  discussion  covered  more  than  one  hun- 
dred years,  though  it  was  not  until  the  last  decade  that  it 
aroused  the  interest  and  opposition  of  the  people  at  large. 
Previous  to  that  time  the  matter  was  confined  to  complaints 
from  the  better  class  of  the  English  clergy  in  the  colonies, 
appeals  to  the  government  and  to  bishops  in  England,  with 
an  occasional  expression  of  favor  or  disfavor  toward  the 
appeal  on  the  part  of  a  colonial  governor.  We  will  find  inter- 
est in  noting  a  few  illustrations. 

Early  The  beginning  of  the  demand  seems  to  have  been  in  the 

jmands.  pamphlet  "  Virginia's  Cure" 1  presented  to  the  bishop  of  Lon- 
don in  1661.  It  pathetically  set  forth  the  "  unhappy  state  of 
the  Church  in  Virginia  "  due  to  the  greatly  scattered  state  of 
the  population,  the  destitution  of  ministers,  and  the  bad  char- 
acter of  some  of  the  few  clergymen  in  the  colony ;  and  sug- 
gested that  a  bishop  was  greatly  needed,  both  for  the  exercise 
of  discipline  and  for  the  encouragement  and  furtherance  of 

1  Force,  Historical  Tracts,  III. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  459 

the  Church  and  its  work.  In  the  same  year  Philip  Mallory, 
a  clergyman  in  Virginia,  was  sent  to  England  for  assistance 
in  "building  up  the  Church  in  the  colony,"  an  important 
feature  in  whose  plan  was  the  sending  of  "  a  bishop,  so  soon 
as  there  should  be  a  city  for  a  see." l  These  representations 
seem  to  have  made  such  an  impression  on  the  episcopal  and 
governmental  mind  of  England,  that  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Murray  was  nominated  for  the  bishopric  of  Virginia,  but  the 
matter  was  not  pursued.  Murray  was  not  appointed,  nor  was 
any  bishop  sent.2  Anderson  justly  says  (p.  559),  "The 
Bishops  were  her  (the  Church's)  natural  and  true  protectors : 
but  they  were  not  permitted  in  any  one  colony  to  watch  over 
her ;  and  hence  all  her  distresses."  3 

In  view  of  the  necessity  of  some  Episcopal  supervision,  the 
jurisdiction  over  the  colonial  Church  was  lodged,  first  in  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  afterward  by  William  III.  in 
the  bishop  of  London,  with  whom  it  remained  to  the  end  of 
the  colonial  period,  and  whose  certificate  was  made  needful 
for  all  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  in  those  colonies 
where  that  Church  was,  or  was  supposed  to  be,  established. 

Every  occupant  of  the  see  of  London  found  the  duties  of 
his  American  diocese  most  troublesome  and  perplexing. 
"  The  care  of  it,"  wrote  the  bishop  in  correspondence  with 
Dr.  Doddridge  in  1751,  "  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  Bishop  of 
London.  Sure  I  am  that  the  care  is  improperly  lodged. 

1  Campbell,  History  of  Virginia,  p.  251. 

2  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  II,  569. 

3  There  is  an  amusing  comment  on  this  early  effort  for  a  bishop  in  the 
records  of  New  Amsterdam.     (Colonial  History  of  New  York,  II,  235.)    The 
rumor  of  it  found  its  way  to  Holland  and  suggested  to  the  West  India  com- 
pany, that  therein  might  be  found  an  influence  toward  composing  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Dutch  and  the  colonies  east  of  them.    In  1664  the  chamber 
at  Amsterdam  wrote  to  Governor  Stuyvesant,  "  We  hear  from  England  that 
the  king  of  England  means  to  establish  bishops  in  America,"  and  expressed 
the  hope  that  opposition  to  bishops  on  the  part  of  the  Puritans  in  New  Eng- 
land "  will  make  them  friends  to  the  Dutch  "  !     So  early  did  the  idea  take 
form  that  an  episcopate  created  by  English  law  was  hostile  to  American 
institutions. 


460  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

For  a  Bishop  to  live  at  one  end  of  the  world,  and  his  Church 
at  the  other,  must  make  the  office  very  uncomfortable  to  the 
Bishop,  and  in  great  measure  useless  to  the  people." ] 

To  meet  some  of  the  difficulties  of  the  situation  the  bishop 
fell  upon  the  scheme  for  the  appointment  of  a  special  kind  of 
Commis-  agent,  to  be  called  a  "  Commissary."  James  Blair  was  con- 
sary'  stituted  commissary  for  Virginia  in  1694 ;  and,  a  few  years 

after,  Thomas  Bray  was  appointed  for  Maryland.  Vesey 
was  also  appointed  to  such  office  in  New  York,  but  the  con- 
dition of  affairs  made  the  appointment  of  small  importance. 
Blair  and  Bray  were  men  of  devoted  piety  and  earnestness,  and 
the  former  was  the  possessor  of  great  force  of  character 
and  executive  ability.  The  Episcopal  Church  in  Maryland 
and  Virginia  owed  most  of  the  good  that  was  in  them  to  the 
wise  and  watchful  care  of  these  two  men.  Especially  is  the 
debt  of  Virginia  to  Blair  still  great  for  the  superb  courage 
and  resolution  through  which,  against  many  obstacles,  he 
secured  the  foundation  of  William  and  Mary  College. 

But  the  powers  of  the  commissary  were  limited.  He  had 
no  authority  beyond  that  of  moral  suasion.  As  the  agent  of 
the  bishop,  inspecting  and  reporting,  he  might  persuade  with 
greater  force  than  an  ordinary  minister.  But  he  had  no 
word  of  command  to  abate  nuisances,  to  rebuke  offenders, 
or  to  even  institute  a  process  of  discipline.  He  could  neither 
confirm  nor  ordain,  neither  induct  nor  remove  ministers.  He 
was  limited  to  inspection,  advice,  and  report  —  the  merest 
shadow  of  a  bishop.  What  the  church  needed  was  a  bishop, 
and  not  a  commissary. 

So  thought  the  Rev.  Nicholas  Morean,  when  writing  in 
1697  to  the  bishop  of  Lichford.2  He  commented  adversely 
on  the  appointment  of  Blair,  because  he  was  a  Scotchman, 
but  at  the  same  time  admired  the  character  of  the  man,  for 
he  continued :  "  An  eminent  Bishop  of  the  same  character 
being  sent  over  here  with  him,  will  make  Hell  tremble  and 
settle  the  Church  of  England  in  these  parts  forever.  .  .  . 

1  Perry,  Historical  Collections —Virginia,  p.  373.  2  /&»&,  p.  31. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  461 

If  I  see  a  Bishop  come  over  here,  I  will  say,  as  St.  Bernard 
said  in  his  epistle  to  Eugenius  Tertius,  hie  digitus  Dei  est." 
Some  years  later,  an  anonymous  letter-writer,  discussing  the 
same  need,  declared :  "  My  Lord  Bishop  of  London's  authority, 
residing  there  in  his  Commissary,  is  notoriously  despised  and 
undervalued:  his  attempts  to  exercise  discipline,  even  in  the 
worst  cases,  are  hindered  by  government  (colonial),  the 
cases  being  taken  out  of  his  hand  and  ordered  to  be  prose- 
cuted in  civil  courts,  where  they  were  so  slightly  handled 
that  they  escaped  uncondemned." l 

With  like  sense  of  the  situation  the  Rev.  Evan  Evans 
wrote  from  Pennsylvania  in  1707,  that  there  was  no  help  for 
the  Church,  unless  a  bishop  should  be  sent,  with  authority 
of  control  over  the  quarrels  and  improper  conduct  of  the 
clergy.2  Colonel  Quary,  the  agent  of  the  board  of  trade,  and 
Colonel  Heathcote  wrote  in  the  same  strain  of  "  the  great 
want  and  need."  3  Another  letter  from  Heathcote  to  the 
Propagation  Society,  in  1705,  dwells  on  the  same  subject,  de- 
clares that  the  English  clergy  in  the  northern  colonies  are  good 
men,  and  has  an  amusing  fling  at  the  Puritans.  Speaking  of 
Massachusetts,  he  wrote  :  "  They  have  an  abundance  of  odd 
laws  there  to  prevent  any  dissenting  from  their  Church  and 
endeavor  to  keep  the  people  in  as  much  blindness  and  unac- 
quaintedness  with  any  other  religion  as  possible :  But  in  a 
more  particular  manner  the  Church,  looking  upon  her  as  the 
most  dangerous  enemy  they  have  to  grapple  withal.  I  really 
believe  that  more  than  one  half  of  the  people  in  that  Govern- 
ment think  our  Church  to  be  little  better  than  the  Papist. 
And  they  fail  not  to  improve  every  little  thing  against  us. 
But  I  bless  God  for  it,  the  Society  have  robbed  them  of  their 
best  argument,  which  was  the  ill  lives  of  our  clergy  that 
came  unto  these  parts.  And  the  truth  is,  I  have  not  seen 
many  good  men  but  of  the  Society's  sending."  4 

1  Perry,  Historical  Collections —Virginia,  p.  35. 

2  Perry,  Collections  —  Pennsylvania,  p.  37. 

8  lUd.,  pp.  42-44.  4  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  77. 


462  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

In  this  letter  the  colonel  touches  upon  the  great  cause  of 
Clerical  the  almost  agonizing  cry  for  a  bishop  —  the  misconduct  of  the 
morals.  clergy.  The  fact  of  such  misconduct  has  already  been  noticed 
as  obtaining,  sometimes  to  a  scandalous  degree,  especially  in 
Virginia  and  Maryland,  and  to  a  much  smaller  extent  in  the 
Carolinas.  In  the  middle  colonies  and  New  England  the  Eng- 
lish clergy  were  not  as  a  class  liable  to  any  such  stigma.  The 
difference  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  different  conditions  in 
the  contrasted  colonies.  In  the  southern  colonies  the  Church 
of  England  was  established  by  law;  in  Maryland  in  1693, 
and  in  the  others  from  their  beginning,  and  was  subject  in 
many  ways  to  the  direct  control  of  the  colonial  government. 
The  right  of  induction  vested  in  the  governor,  who  was  very 
rarely  a  person  possessed  of  regard  for  the  spiritual  interests 
of  the  Church  or  people.  Livings  were  given  out  of  favor. 
Adventurers,  who  had  lost  place  and  character  in  England, 
came  over  to  the  colonies,  where  half  the  parishes  were  with- 
out parsons,  and  by  a  little  fawning  could  obtain  from  governor 
and  vestry  a  comfortable  location.  After  that,  no  degree  of 
scandalous  behavior  could  give  to  the  governor  a  power  of 
removal.  The  ill-living  parson  remained  and  held  his  own 
against  all  remonstrances,  unless  his  misconduct  brought  him 
under  censure  by  the  civil  law. 

It  was  impossible  for  such  a  condition  to  obtain  in  the 
northern  colonies,  where,  before  the  introduction  of  the 
Church  of  England,  the  sober  and  elevating  influences  of 
other  Churches  had  long  obtained,  and  where  the  power  of 
the  governor  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  was  practically  very 
small.  In  these  colonies,  with  almost  no  exceptions,  the 
clergy  of  the  English  Church  were  men  of  high  character  and 
of  spiritual  affection  for  their  religious  mother,  men  equal  to 
sacrifice  in  order  to  build  up  their  Church  in  the  midst  of 
unfriendly  surroundings.  It  was  almost  impossible  for  a 
reprobate  to  obtain  a  parish,  or,  having  obtained  one,  it  was 
impossible  that  he  should  long  possess  it. 

I  find  but  one  governor  giving  evidence  of  anything  like 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  463 

interest  in  the  spiritual  and  vital  interests  of  the  Church. 
This  was  Governor  Hart  of  Maryland,  "a  man  of  earnest  Governor 
and  devout  spirit."  On  his  arrival  in  1714  he  "lost  no  time  Hart' 
in  convening  the  clergy  at  Annapolis  that  he  might  inform 
himself  "  about  the  state  of  the  Church.  Presently  he  reported 
to  the  bishop  of  London  that  there  were  many  faithful  min- 
isters, and  "  some  whose  education  and  morals  were  a  scandal 
to  their  profession."  "  Unless  I  had  a  power  to  remove  such 
as  are  scandalously  notorious,  I  cannot  do  effectual  service. 
I  am  sorry  that  there  are  many  such  here,  and  I  believe 
nothing  will  reclaim  some  of  them,  until  they  feel  the  severi- 
ties of  ecclesiastical  censures."  The  governor  joined  with 
Bray  and  the  better  men  among  the  clergy  in  urging  the 
appointment  of  a  bishop.1 

The  pressure  from  the  colonies  succeeded  in  producing, 
about  1707,  another  slight  spasm  of  interest  in  England. 
We  find  the  bishop  of  London,  willing  enough  to  be  relieved 
of  his  over-sea  charge,  observing  that  there  "should  be  a 
suffragan  Bishop  in  America.  An  absolute  Bishop  might 
alarm  "  the  people.  But  a  suffragan,  for  whose  appointment 
the  office  of  commissary  had  in  a  sense  prepared  them,  would 
excite  no  fears.  It  was  quite  "  necessary  to  go  slow  "  in  so 
important  a  matter.2 

There  were  hopes  excited  on  both  sides  of  the  sea.    In 
England  the  government  was  urged  to  send  the  famous  Jona- 
than Swift,  and  the  dean  wrote  to  Governor  Hunter  in  1709:  Dean 
"  All  my  hopes  now  terminate  in  being  made  Bishop  of  Vir-  Swlftt 
ginia.''3     While   one  can  but  sympathize  with  the  colonial 
Church  in  its  deprivation  of  episcopal  functions,  it  will  not 
be  deplored  that  the  dean's  hopes  were  disappointed.     In  the 
colonies   the   spirits   of   the   clergy  were   elated.     Those  of 
Pennsylvania  wrote  to  the  society  of  their  delight  in  "  the 

1  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  III,  285 ;  Perry,  Collections  —  Maryland, 
p.  81. 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  V,  29. 
»  Campbell,  History  of  Virginia,  p.  377. 


464  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

satisfactory  prospect  we  have  of  the  Honorable  Society's  suc- 
cessful endeavors  for  settling  Bishops  and  Bishopricks  in 
these  parts."1 

But  all  these  hopes  were  vain ;  no  bishop  was  appointed, 
and  the  stream  of  complaints  began  again,  continuing  with 
more  and  more  of  volume,  and  with  ever  deepening  sense  of 
the  need  until  the  end  of  the  colonial  period.  Perry's  Collec- 
tions abound  in  the  most  strident  cries  from  the  clergy  in  all 
the  colonies.  Dr.  Cutler  writes  (1723)  from  Massachusetts 
(pp.  143,  433) :  "  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  interests  of 
religion  and  the  Church  of  England  would  flourish  with  us 
by  the  immediate  presence  and  inspection  of  a  Bishop  .  .  . 
(this)  is  the  universal  desire  of  the  Church  .  .  .  (and  of) 
many  that  want  hereby  to  be  enlivened  and  emboldened  in 
their  entrance  into  her  communion  ;"  and  again  in  1749: 
"  even  many  sober  Dissenters  (!)  do  think  a  resolute  Bishop 
would  be  a  Blessing,  and  not  a  few  seem  to  rejoice  at  the  news 
encouraging  our  hopes  of  it,  though  others  and  a  still  big- 
ger number  are  ready  according  to  their  power  to  defeat  it." 
Mr.  Inglis  reports  from  Delaware  (p.  101)  the  opinion  of  a 
voluntary  conference  of  the  clergy  that  they  "  must  have 
a  Bishop.  Otherwise  the  Church  will  languish  and  die." 
Addison  of  Maryland  (p.  334)  writes  to  the  bishop  of  London 
of  the  "  expediency  of  establishing  episcopacy,  without  which 
the  Church  of  England  must  lose  ground."  And  Craig, 
writing  from  Pennsylvania  (p.  187),  laments  the  difficulty 
and  expense  of  going  to  England  for  ordination  and  the  con- 
sequent scarcity  of  ministers,  and,  with  a  charming  subcon- 
sciousness  that  only  the  Church  of  England  could  dispense 
the  pure  gospel,  concludes  that  there  is  "  but  one  way  left  of 
removing  such  a  famine  of  the  word,  and  that  is  by  sending 
a  Bishop  to  America." 

One  thing   which  the   English   clergy  in   New   England 

Church         promised  themselves,  as  a  consequent  upon  the  establishment 

of  bishops,  was  relief  from  the  legal  Church  rates.     Them- 

i  Perry,  Collections  —  Pennsylvania,  p.  72. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  465 

selves  non-conformists,  they  thought  it  very  hard  that  they 
should  be  compelled  to  bear  in  New  England  a  burden  which 
all  non-conformists  in  the  old  country  had  to  submit  to.  Dr. 
Cutler  was  specially  outraged  by  the  situation,  and  in  1727 
he  joined  with  six  others  in  a  petition  to  the  king  against 
Massachusetts  tithes.  In  a  letter  to  John  Delapp  he  waxed 
indignant,  declaring  that  "an  honest  Christian  is  double 
taxed,  like  as  a  Papist  or  Recusant."1  The  subject  is  dis- 
cussed in  the  already  noted  correspondence  between  the 
bishop  of  London  and  Dr.  Doddridge,2  wherein  the  latter 
broadly  intimates  that  the  Episcopalian  in  New  England  was 
no  worse  off  and  had  no  more  reason  to  complain  than  the 
Presbyterian  in  England ! 

The  bishop  of  London  and  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  English 
were  about  the  only  friends  that  the  colonial  Church  had  in  sentiment- 
England.3  The  latter,  Seeker,  preached  the  anniversary  ser- 
mon of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
1740,4  and  pleaded  strongly  for  an  American  episcopate.  He 
seems  to  have  had  the  same  low  estimate  of  the  spiritual  con- 
dition of  the  colonies  as  that  expressed  by  Craig,  painting  the 
condition  in  dark  colors.  According  to  his  grace  there  had 
been  "  no  baptism  for  twenty  years,"  and  no  administration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  for  sixty  years.  "  Such  was  the  state 
in  more  of  the  colonies  than  one,  and  where  it  was  a  little 
better  it  was  however  lamentably  bad  .  .  .  There  are  scarce 
any  footsteps  of  Christianity  beyond  the  very  name  "  (!) 
In  the  same  discourse  he  commented  on  the  establishments  in 
New  England,  and  the  hardship  of  tithes  exacted  from  Epis- 
copalians. The  sermon  was  published  in  America,  as  well  as 
in  England,  and  drew  from  Andrew  Elliott  a  caustic  review, 
in  which  was  demonstrated  the  excessive  care  of  the  New 

1  Perry,  Collections  —  Massachusetts,  pp.  191-264. 

2  Perry,  Collections —  Virginia,  pp.  373-375. 
»  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  IV,  183. 

*  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  VI,  906 ;  Massachusetts  Historical  So- 
ciety, II,  2;  190-202. 
2n 


466    '  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

England  colonies  to  provide  religious  opportunities  to  every 
community,  and  that  the  Episcopalians  had  suffered  no  hard- 
ships whatever  since  the  enactment  of  the  "  Five-Mile  Act." 
The  discussion  had  large  influence  in  deepening  the  feeling 
of  opposition  to  the  establishment  of  a  bishop. 

As  the  numbers  of  people  increased,  and  the  English  clergy 
felt  the  ever  growing  burdens  of  the  situation,  the  represen- 
tations of  their  need  became  ever  more  urgent,  now  with  a 
touch  of  pathos,  and  again  with  a  stroke  of  bitterness.  The 
Johnson.  correspondence  of  the  saintly  and  venerable  Johnson  of  Strat- 
ford has  many  discussions  of  the  subject.  1He  wrote  to 
Archbishop  Seeker  in  1753,  "  Give  me  leave  to  inform  you, 

That 

*  As  the  Church  doth  hither  westward  fly, 
So  Sin  doth  dog  and  trace  her  instantly/ 

.  .  .  which  makes  it  extremely  melancholy  that  we  cannot  be 
favored  with  a  good  Bishop  to  assist  us  and  go  before  us  in 
stemming  the  torrent."  At  other  times  Dr.  Johnson  wrote:2 
"  The  Freethinkers  &  Dissenters,  who  play  into  one  another's 
hands  against  the  Chh.  will  never  drop  their  virulence  and 
activity,  by  all  manner  of  Artifices,  till  they  go  near  to  raze 
the  very  Constitution  to  the  foundation,  both  in  Chh.  and 
State."  "  The  Church  asks  no  more  than  to  be  upon  a  par 
here  with  her  neighbors,  and  having  leave  to  enjoy  the  benefit 
of  her  own  institutions  as  well  as  they."  "  When  they  enjoy 
their  Presbytery  in  the  full  vigor  of  its  discipline,  is  it  not 
a  cruel  thing  that  they  should  be  so  bitterly  against  the 
Church's  enjoying  her  own  form  of  Government  and  disci- 
pline? She  cannot  provide  for  her  own  children,  without 
their  consent  to  it."  In  1766,  Dr.  Johnson,  commenting  on 
two  young  candidates,  who  were  lost  at  sea  while  on  a  voy- 
age to  England  for  ordination,  wrote :  "  These  make  up  ten 
valuable  lives  that  have  now  been  lost  for  want  of  ordaining 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  VI,  777. 

2  Ibid.,  VI,  912  ;  VII,  373  j  Beardsley,  Episcopal  Church  of  Connecticut, 
1,254. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  467 

powers  here,  out  of  fifty-four  that  have  gone  for  ordination 
...  I  consider  the  Church  here,  for  want  of  bishops,  in  no 
other  light  than  as  being  in  a  state  of  persecution  on  that 
account."  Johnson's  own  son  was  one  of  the  ten  lost. 
When  the  news  of  the  bereavement  reached  him  he  wrote : 1 
"This  is  now  the  seventh  precious  life  (most  of  them  the 
flower  of  this  country)  that  has  been  sacrificed  to  the  atheis- 
tical politics  of  this  miserable,  abandoned  age.  ...  I  con- 
fess I  should  scarce  have  thought  my  dear  son's  life  ill 
bestowed,  if  it  could  have  been  the  means  of  awakening  this 
stupid  age  to  a  sense  of  the  necessity  of  sending  bishops." 
Nothing  could  go  farther  than  this  to  illustrate  the  sense 
of  extreme  need  entertained  by  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  colonies. 

After  1760  the  discussion  and  controversy  took  on  a  very 
acute  phase.  Dr.  Mayhew  of  Boston,  in  1763,  published  a  Mayhew. 
pamphlet  against  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel, finding  in  its  charter  and  conduct  what  he  deemed  "  a 
formal  design  to  carry  on  a  spiritual  siege  of  our  Churches, 
with  the  hope  that  they  will  one  day  submit  to  a  spiritual 
sovereign ; "  2  and  expressed  the  alarm  throughout  New  Eng- 
land, "  that  all  the  evils  which  adhered  to  the  Church  in  the 
old  world  would  be  transplanted  to  this  "  by  the  appointment 
of  bishops.  Rev.  Solomon  Palmer  of  Connecticut  com- 
mented :  "  The  invidious  Dr.  Mayhew,  of  base  principles  and, 
it  is  to  be  feared,  a  dishonest  heart,  has  raised  a  dust  to  blind 
men's  eyes  and  stir  up  a  popular  clamor."  3 

The  paper  of  Dr.  Mayhew  made  a  great  sensation,  and 
Archbishop  Seeker  thought  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
honored  with  a  reply  from  his  own  pen.  Writing  to  Mr. 
Duche  in  1763  he  tells  of  a  new  movement  for  sending 
bishops,  of  which  he  had  previously  written  to  Johnson:4 

1  Beardsley,  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut,  I,  184. 

2  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  VI,  906;  Beardsley,  Episcopal  Church 
in  Connecticut,  I,  230. 

»  Beardsley,  I,  228.  *  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  VII,  348. 


468  RISE  OF  EELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  This  I  have  long  had  at  heart  .  .  .  nor  shall  I  ever  abandon 
the  scheme  as  long  as  I  live."  To  Duche  he  said  that  the 
scheme  had  been  explained  to  Lord  Egremont,  who  promised 
to  further  it,  and  that  Halifax  was  in  favor  of  it,  but  the 
issue  was  doubtful ;  "  the  more  for  Dr.  Mayhew's  late  pam- 
phlet. It  is  written  with  great  virulence,  but  must  be  answered 
with  great  mildness,  else  no  good  will  be  done." 1  The  mild 
answer  of  the  archbishop  appeared  in  1764,  and  sought  to 
allay  fears  that  the  appointment  of  bishops  involved  anything 
beyond  the  order  of  the  Church  of  England.  They  were  to 
have  no  concern  in  the  least  with  any  not  of  the  Church  of 
England ;  (they  were)  only  to  ordain  ministers  for  such  as 
do  profess  that  Church,  confirm  children,  and  take  the  over- 
sight of  the  Episcopal  clergy.  It  is  not  desired  in  the  least 
that  they  should  hold  courts  to  try  material  or  testamentary 
causes,  or  be  vested  with  any  magisterial  authority,  or  in- 
fringe or  diminish  any  privileges  or  liberties."  2 

But  this  calm  exposition  of  Episcopal  purposes  did  not 
propitiate  opponents.  The  Rev.  W.  Gillchrist  wrote  from 
Salem  in  1765 :3  "The  Gentlemen  in  this  Province  are  all 
in  a  manner  professed  advocates  for  universal  toleration  and 
liberty  of  conscience,  and  yet  in  direct  contravention  of  this 
principle  the  Dissenters  avowedly  oppose  with  all  their  inter- 
est a  Bishop's  being  sent  over  to  America.  .  .  .  They  dis- 
cover the  most  partial  propensity  to  their  own  party,  for  they 
stiffly  maintain  that  Spiritual  Courts,  with  such  jurisdiction 
as  they  have  in  England,  would  necessarily  follow  them,  and 
that  their  maintenance  would  be  raised  by  a  tax  upon 
America."  "  Never,"  wrote  Winslow,  of  Connecticut,  "  did 
a  malignant  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  Church  rage  with 
greater  vehemence  than  of  late."  4 

The  climax   of  the   dispute   came   with  the   controversy 

1  Perry,  Collections  — Pennsylvania,  p.  389. 
a  Beardsley,  I,  233. 

8  Perry,  Collections  —  Massachusetts,  p.  519. 
*  Beardsley,  I,  214. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  469 

between  Dr.  Chandler  of  New  Jersey  and  Dr.  Chauncey  of 
Boston.  The  former  published  in  1767,  "An  Appeal  to  the  chandler's 
Public"  in  which  he  entered  at  great  length  into  the  situa-  APPeal- 
tion  and  necessities  of  the  Church.  Its  need  of  a  properly 
constituted  American  episcopate  is  its  great  theme,  cogently 
presented  from  the  character  of  the  Church  polity,  the  need 
of  watchful  discipline,  and  the  exercise  of  all  episcopal  func- 
tions, and  "  the  unparalleled  hardship  "  of  resorting  to  Eng- 
land for  ordination.  The  appeal  was  answered  by  Dr.  Chaun- 
cey, and  in  reply  to  this  Dr.  Chandler  put  forth  "  The  Appeal 
Defended."  To  this  also  Dr.  Chauncey  replied  in  a  pamphlet, 
which  drew  from  Chandler  a  third  treatise  entitled,  "  The 
Appeal  Further  Defended."  With  this  the  controversy  ended, 
so  far  as  these  writers  were  concerned. 

But  it  was  not  so  with  the  public  at  large.  The  appeal 
was  finally  attacked  in  the  newspapers,  especially  in  the  New 
York  G-azette  and  the  Philadelphia  Sentinel,  while  almost  the 
entire  city  of  Boston  was  excited.1  The  difference  between 
the  parties  was  such  that  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  come 
to  any  composition.  The  very  question  of  the  episcopate  was 
a  totally  different  question  in  the  mind  of  one  party  from 
what  it  was  in  the  mind  of  the  other.  To  the  English  clergy 
it  was  a  question  of  Church  order  and  discipline,  and  a  per- 
fectly just  demand  that  their  Church  in  America  should  be 
properly  equipped  for  its  own  life  and  work.  To  their  op- 
ponents it  was  entirely  a  political  question,  and  matters  of 
Church  order  and  religion  entered  little  into  their  thought 
concerning  it. 


The  whole  question  of  a  State-Church  was  involved  in  it. 
They  knew  that  a  bishop  in  England  was  an  officer  of  the  c 
state  ;  that  the  parliament  ordained  his  place  and  power  and 
the  crown  had  the  gift  of  his  preferment,  while  his  maintenance 
was  by  public  endowment.  They  remembered  what  bishops 
had  been  in  England,  and  how  their  fathers  had  suffered 
many  things  at  episcopal  hands.  They  knew  also  that  in  the 
i  Beardsley,  I,  259. 


470  RISE  OF  KELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

very  time  of  this  dispute  the  non-conformists  of  England 
were  subjected  to  many  annoyances  and  disabilities  ;  and, 
whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  they  judged  that  the  institution 
of  an  episcopate  in  America,  by  an  act  of  parliament  and  on 
the  nomination  of  the  king,  would  in  the  near  future  be  fol- 
lowed by  attempts  at  spiritual  tyranny.  "  It  excited,"  said 
John  Adams,1  "  a  general  and  just  apprehension  that  Bishops, 
and  Dioceses,  and  Churches,  and  Priests,  and  Tythes  were 
to  be  imposed  upon  us  by  Parliament.  It  was  known  that 
neither  King,  nor  Ministry,  nor  Archbishop  could  appoint 
Bishops  in  America  without  an  act  of  Parliament;  and  if 
Parliament  could  tax  us,  they  could  install  the  Church  of 
England,  with  all  its  Creeds,  Articles,  Tests,  Ceremonies,  and 
Tithes,  and  prohibit  all  other  Churches  as  Conventicles  and 
Schism-shops."  Thus  the  question  took  place  among  those 
which  brought  on  the  war  of  the  Revolution. 

Nothing  which  the  Episcopal  party  could  say,  or  rather  did 
say,  was  able  to  disabuse  the  public  mind  of  the  impression 
Ulterior  that  there  was  an  ulterior  design  dangerous  to  liberty.  "  We 
design.  can  not  believe,"  wrote  one  disputant,2  "  that  he  would  be 
long  content  to  be  but  half  a  Bishop,  to  have  a  nominal  Office, 
without  the  Powers  and  Emoluments.  You  think  it  hard  to 
be  deprived  of  the  Privileges  of  other  Societies,  but  you  may 
blame  the  Arbitrary  Spirit  of  your  Bishops,  who  have  always 
infringed  on  the  Estates  and  Consciences  of  the  People." 
The  fear  that  bishops  would  necessarily  assume  similar  rela- 
tions to  the  government  to  those  sustained  by  the  English 
prelates  was  universal  in  the  non-episcopal  community,  and  it 
is  specially  notable  that  the  Episcopal  party  in  all  their  argu- 
ment and  disclaimers  of  political  designs,  evidently  thought 
it  possible  that  such  might  be  the  issue.  Thus  Dr.  Chandler 
in  his  pathetic  appeal,  while  discussing  the  non-episcopal 
objections  and  denying  a  desire  to  establish  the  Church  of 
England  as  a  State-Church,  still  finds  himself  unable  to  give 

1  Colonial  History  of  New  York,  VI,  906. 

2  Letters  by  an  Anti-Episcopalian. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  471 

the  guarantee,  which  alone  could  have  reconciled  the  people 
at  large  to  the  proposed  episcopate.1 

On  the  matter  of  tithes  he  wrote,  that  the  English  laws 
could  "never  have  any  effect  here,  until  an  Act  of  Parliament 
shall  be  made  to  extend  them  to  us."  In  regard  to  the  public 
maintenance  of  the  bishops,  he  disclaimed  any  intention  that 
such  should  be  established,  but  in  view  of  the  possibility  that 
parliament  might  so  ordain,  he  continued:  "But  should  a 
general  tax  be  laid  .  .  .  supposing  we  had  three  Bishops,  such 
a  Tax  would  not  amount  to  more  than  Four  Pence  in  One 
Hundred  Pounds.  And  this  would  be  no  mighty  Hardship 
upon  the  Country.  He  that  could  think  much  of  giving  the 
Six  Thousandth  Part  of  his  Income  to  any  Use,  which  the 
Legislature  of  his  Country  shall  assign,  deserves  not  to  be 
considered  in  the  Light  of  a  good  Subject  or  Member  of  So- 
ciety. .  .  .  But  no  such  tax  is  intended,  nor  I  trust  will  be 
wanted."  Again,  on  the  subject  of  civil  functions  he  said : 
"  There  is  not  the  least  Prospect  at  present  that  Bishops  in 
this  Country  will  acquire  any  Influence  or  Power  .  .  .  But 
should  the  Government  see  fit  hereafter  to  invest  them  with 
some  degree  of  civil  Power  worthy  of  their  Acceptance,  which 
it  is  impossible  to  say  they  will  not  .  .  .  yet  as  no  new  powers 
will  be  created  in  Favour  of  Bishops,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
any  would  thereby  be  injured." 

Here  was  the  weak  point  in  the  appeal  and  the  entire  The  weak 
Episcopal  argument,  and  one  so  fatal  that  no  pleas  of  the  P°int- 
Church's  need  could  offset  this  suggestive  possibility.  Had 
the  Episcopal  party  been  able  to  furnish  a  guarantee  that  the 
Episcopate  would  be  confined  strictly  to  ecclesiastical  and 
spiritual  functions  in  its  own  Church  alone,  without  possi- 
bility that  a  public  maintenance  would  be  assessed,  they 
might  probably  have  disarmed  the  opposition.  But  this  was 
not  possible.  They  knew  it  to  be  unlikely  that  the  English 
Parliament  would  legislate  to  deprive  any  bishops,  whether 
at  home  or  in  the  colonies,  of  those  privileges  which  for 

i  Chandler,  Appeal,  pp.  105,  107,  110. 


472  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

centuries  had  been  perquisites  of  their  office.  If  the  Parlia- 
ment of  the  day  should  be  so  complaisant  as  to  so  constitute 
American  bishops,  there  was  no  security  that  a  succeeding 
Parliament  might  not  reverse  the  action. 

Just  such  an  episcopate,  shorn  of  all  civil  power,  was  the 
request  of  the  English  clergy  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey, 
in  their  address  to  the  government  in  1772.1  They  asked 
for  "  Bishops  with  purely  Ecclesiastical  Powers,  without  any 
temporal  Authority,  and  without  any  Jurisdiction  over  Dis- 
senters of  any  Denomination.  We  wish  not  to  interfere  with 
the  Rights  and  Privileges  of  others,  or  to  abridge  the  ample 
Toleration  they  already  enjoy.  With  this  Disposition  we  con- 
ceive it  to  be  more  than  reasonable  that  we  should  be  indulged 
with  the  same  religious  Privileges  which  are  granted  to  them, 
especially  considering  our  Relation  to  the  national  establish- 
ment" 

This  was  as  far  as  the  Episcopal 'party  could  go,  in  regard 
to  the  limitations  of  the  desired  episcopate ;  nor,  so  far  as 
that  was  concerned,  could  their  opponents  justly  ask  more. 
But  with  that  concession  the  terms  by  which  it  was  attended 
were  offensive.  It  was  never  fitting,  north  of  Maryland,  to 
"Dis-  speak  of  non-Episcopalians  as  dissenters.  In  New  England 

senters."  ^he  Episcopalians  were  themselves  dissenters.  In  New 
York  and  New  Jersey  the  term  involved  a  claim  to  an  estab- 
lishment with  which  the  Church  of  England  had  legally  no 
connection  whatever.  Nor  were  the  Churches  of  the  northern 
colonies  willing  to  admit  that  they  were  allowed  a  toleration. 
They  were  to  the  manor  born,  and  it  was  the  Episcopal 
Church  that  was  tolerated.  The  plea  also  of  the  "  Relation 
to  the  National  establishment "  was  such  as  to  prejudice  the 
non-Episcopal  mind,  which  was  not  ready  to  agree  to  any- 
thing which  based  itself  on  the  fact  or  power  of  that 
establishment. 

William  Smith,  the  historian  of  New  York,  writing  about 
1770,  said :  "  The  Episcopalians  are  in  the  proportion  of  one 

1  New  Jersey  Archives,  X,  309. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  473 

to  fifteen  (in  New  York) The  body  of  the  people  are 

for  an  equal,  universal  toleration  of  protestants,  and  utterly 
averse  to  any  kind  of  ecclesiastical  establishment.  The  dis- 
senters, though  fearless  of  each  other,  are  all  jealous  of  the 
episcopal  party,  being  apprehensive  that  the  countenance 
they  may  have  from  home  will  foment  a  lust  of  dominion 
and  enable  them,  in  process  of  time,  to  subjugate  and  oppress 
their  fellow  subjects." 1 

It  is  notable  that  this  great  debate  found  its  place  espe- 
cially in  the  northern  colonies.  The  southern  colonies  in  southern 
which  the  Church  of  England  was  established  did  not  largely  colonies- 
concern  themselves  about  it.  There  had  been  sent  from 
Maryland  and  Virginia  sundry  personal  letters  expressing  a 
desire  for  bishops.  In  Maryland,  as  noted  in  the  sketch  of 
that  colony,  a  clerical  convention,  on  invitation  of  the  Bishop 
of  London,  had  nominated  for  suffragan  a  Mr.  Colebatch, 
whom  the  colonial  government  would  not  permit  to  go  to 
England  for  ordination.2  But  toward  the  end  of  the  colo- 
nial period  the  southern  Church  ceased  to  be  greatly  agitated 
on  the  matter.  In  1767  3Mr.  Neill  wrote  of  Governor  Sharpe 
of  Maryland  that  he  "answered  all  the  ends  of  a  bishop, 
except  in  conferring  orders  and  confirmation.  I  wish  he  had 
this  part  of  Episcopal  authority  confirmed  upon  him.  He 
would  make  as  good  a  bishop  as  we  could  wish  for."  (!) 

In  Virginia  there  was  but  a  very  small  party  in  the  estab- 
lished Church  in  favor  of  having  a  bishop.  How  large  a  part 
of  this  indifference  was  due  to  the  notorious  character  of 
many  of  the  clergy  there  are  no  means  of  telling,  but  it  is 
reasonable  to  think  that  men  of  such  character  would  not  be 
anxious  to  establish  courts  for  their  own  discipline.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  this  clerical  delinquency  and  the  reaction 
from  the  "  Parson's  Cause  "  had  pronounced  a  majority  of 
the  laity  in  disaffection  toward  the  Church  and  in  opposition 


1  History  of  New  York,  I,  337. 

2  Anderson,  Colonial  Church,  III,  295. 

8  Perry,  Collections  —  Pennsylvania,  p.  420. 


474  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

to  any  effort  for  her  aggrandizement.  This  was  strongly 
expressed  in  1771.  In  that  year  the  party  in  favor  of  having 
a  bishop  called  a  convention  to  consider  the  question.  Out 
of  all  the  clergymen  in  Virginia  only  twelve  came  to  the 
gathering,  which,  notwithstanding  the  absurdity  of  such  a 
body  venturing  to  represent  the  clergy  of  the  colony,  adopted 
an  address  to  the  home  government  asking  for  a  bishop.  But 
even  this  action  was  not  unanimous.  Out  of  the  twelve 
present  four  ministers  protested,  basing  their  objection  on 
the  very  proper  ground  that  so  small  a  body  could  not  speak 
for  the  Church  of  Virginia.  The  next  house  of  burgesses  by 
formal  vote  thanked  these  four  for  resisting  "  the  pernicious 
project."  It  is  evident  that  in  the  mind  of  the  legislature  it 
was  rather  the  demand  for  a  bishop,  than  the  smallness  of  the 
convention,  that  excited  opposition.1 

It  is  not  at  all  difficult  to  sympathize  with  both  parties  to 
the  dispute.  "American  Episcopacy  without  an  American 
bishop  was  a  solecism."  (Bancroft.)  That  the  Church  should 
be  possessed  of  its  full  polity  was  a  demand  for  its  life.  At 
the  same  time,  it  was  impossible  for  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  to  regard  with  equanimity  the  appointment  of  an  epis- 
copate in  the  country,  unless  its  relation  to  the  civil  govern- 
ment should  be  radically  changed  from  the  English  model, 
and  its  relation  to  the  Church  in  England  should  be  com- 
pletely severed. 

The  dispute  also  was  inevitably  involved  in  the  now  press- 
ing political  struggle.  Both  in  Church  and  State  the  ques- 
tion was  one:  whether  Parliament  should  tax  the  colonies. 
Dr.  Chandler  altogether  missed  the  point,  when  expatiating 
on  the  smallness  of  the  tax  for  Episcopal  support.  The  tax 
on  tea  was  insignificant.  The  colonial  mind  was  not  occu- 
pied by  the  amount  of  the  tax,  but  the  principle  of  taxation. 
It  refused  to  pay  taxes  to  the  imperial  treasury,  and  to  per- 
mit the  imperial  legislature  to  impose  a  church  order.  Thus, 
"The  claim  of  a  right  to  establish  a  Bishop  and  Episcopal 

1  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  p.  126. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  475 

courts,  without  the  consent  of  the  colony,"  was  one  of  the 
u Grievances"  enumerated  by  a  town-meeting  of  Boston, 
November,  1772.1 

That  the  opposition  was  entirely  political  and  did  not  rep- 
resent sectarianism  is  capable  of  abundant  proof.  The  demand 
came  chiefly  from  the  English  clergy  in  the  northern  colonies, 
while  the  great  body  of  their  own  laity  were  not  in  sympathy 
with  them.  The  Churchmen  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  were 
at  one  with  the  Congregationalists  of  New  England.  No 
one,  into  whom  had  entered  anything  of  the  spirit  of  Ameri- 
can freedom,  was  willing  to  concede  that  the  royal  preroga- 
tive extended  to  the  colonial  churches.  Some  things  had 
happened  in  recent  years  which  men  had  not  forgotten. 
There  still  rankled  in  Massachusetts  the  king's  prohibition 
of  the  proposed  synod  of  Congregational  ministers  in  1725, 
wherein  the  lords  justices  of  England  claimed  for  the  crown 
supremacy  in  all  ecclesiastical  affairs,  which,  "  being  a  branch 
of  his  prerogative,  does  take  place  in  the  plantations:  and 
synods  can  not  be  held,  nor  is  it  lawful  for  the  clergy  to 
assemble  as  in  synods,  without  authority  from  his  Majesty."2 
Nor  did  the  people  of  New  York  forget  the  recent  refusal  of 
the  king  to  allow  incorporation  to  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
which  was  bidden  to  expect  no  other  privileges  than  those 
conferred  by  the  toleration  act  of  1689. 

This  refusal  was  singularly  impolitic  for  the  interests  of 
the  English  Church  in  the  colonies.  It  occurred  in  1767,  in 
the  height  of  the  Episcopal  debate,  and  could  reasonably 
have  no  other  effect  than  to  intensify  opposition  to  an  Amer- 
ican episcopate.  "That  decision,"  wrote  Dr.  Chauncey,  "was 
an  alarm  to  all  the  churches  on  the  continent,  giving  them 
solemn  notice  what  they  might  expect,  should  Episcopalians 
ever  come  to  have  supremacy  in  their  influence."3  Under 
such  circumstances,  it  was  impossible  to  persuade  non-Epis- 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  VI,  433. 

2  Hodge,  History  of  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  471. 
»  Hodge,  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  469. 


476  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

copalians  that  the  question  about  bishops  was  one  which 
need  not  concern  them,  or  the  legitimate  interest  in  which 
should  be  confined  to  the  Church  of  England.  Nor  is  it  a 
strange  thing  that  in  the  synods  of  the  Presbyterians  in  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  Congregational  churches 
of  Connecticut  in  1768  and  1775,  uthe  great  and  almost  the 
only  subject,  which  occupied  their  attention,  was  opposition 
to  the  establishment  of  an  American  episcopate."1  To  the 
same  dread  of  an  undesirable  elevation  and  increase  of  Epis- 
copal power  was  due  the  long  struggle  over  the  foundation 
of  King's  College,  which  agitated  the  people  of  New  York.2 
A  minor  illustration  of  the  encroaching  spirit  for  which  the 
Church  of  England  was  feared,  is  recorded  by  Smith  (I,  349), 
to  the  effect  that  the  Episcopal  clergy,  "for  enlarging  the 
sphere  of  their  secular  business,  attempted  by  a  petition  to 
the  late  Governor  Clinton  to  engross  the  privilege  of  sol- 
emnizing all  marriages.  A  great  clamor  ensued,  and  the 
attempt  was  abortive."  Such  an  attempt  seems  to  the  mod- 
ern mind  almost  too  absurd  for  belief,  but  it  needs  to  be 
remembered,  in  justice  to  the  clergy,  that  the  effort  was  in 
strict  accordance  with  English  law.  At  that  time,  and  for 
many  years  after,  no  marriage  could  be  made  in  England 
without  the  official  presence  of  a  clergyman  of  the  national 
Church.  For  this  reason,  the  Episcopal  ministers  of  New 
York,  supposing  the  Church  of  England  to  be  established  in 
the  province,  might  easily  conclude  that  they  should  possess 
all  the  perquisites  of  their  English  brethren. 

Still  another  and  powerful  factor,  in  the  dispute  about 
bishops,  was  the  attitude  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  on  the 
Toryism.  questions  at  issue  between  the  colonies  and  the  English  gov- 
ernment. The  Memoir  of  Rev.  John  Stuart,  D.D.,  records, 
"No  class  was  so  uncompromising  in  its  loyalty  (to  the 
king)  as  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  in  this  state 
(New  York) ;  and  they  in  consequence  did  not  fail  to  expe- 

1  Hodge,  History  of  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  449. 

2  Smith,  History  of  New  York,  II,  232-289. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  477 

rience  the  bitter  effects  of  their  unwise  resolution." l  From 
the  beginning  of  the  troubles,  the  English  clergy  as  a  class 
were  stout  preachers  of  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience, 
and  condemned  all  the  colonial  attempts  against  parliamen- 
tary oppression.  In  view  of  the  growing  spirit  of  indepen- 
dence, the  clergy  of  New  York  went  so  far,  in  1760,  as  to 
urge  in  correspondence  with  Archbishop  Seeker  the  abroga- 
tion of  all  provincial  charters.2 

In  the  midst  of  the  excitement  about  the  stamp  act  of 
1765,  seven  missionaries  of  the  society  in  New  England 
joined  in  a  report  that  the  people  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  particularly  of  their  own  charges,  were  of  "a  contrary 
temper  and  conduct,  esteeming  it  nothing  short  of  rebellion 
to  speak  evil  of  dignitaries  and  to  avow  opposition  to  this  last 
Act  of  Parliament."  At  the  same  time,  Dr.  Learning  wrote 
to  the  society:  "The  missionaries  in  this  colony  are  very- 
serviceable,  not  only  in  a  religious  but  in  a  civil  sense." 
In  some  northern  towns,  "most  rebellious  outrages  have 
been  committed,  while  those  towns,  where  the  Church  has 
got  footing,  have  soberly  submitted  to  the  civil  authority."  3 

The  great  advocate  for  an  American  episcopate,  Dr. 
Chandler,  was  very  pronounced  in  his  adhesion  to  the  royal 
cause,  which  he  made  one  with  the  interest  of  the  Church. 
In  his  thought,  both  must  stand  or  fall  together.  "  Who  can 
be  certain,"  he  wrote,  "  that  the  present  rebellious  disposition 
of  the  colonies  is  not  intended  by  Providence  as  a  punish- 
ment for  that  neglect  ?  "  (to  make  the  Church  a  national  con- 
cern and  to  send  bishops).4  In  1774,  Dr.  Chandler  published 
A  Friendly  Address,  asking  the  question,  "  What  think  ye  of 
Congress  now  ?  "  which  so  enraged  his  people  at  Elizabeth, 
that  he  was  obliged  to  leave.6 

1  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  IV,  508. 

2  Bancroft,  United  States,  IV,  427. 

»  Beardsley,  Episcopal  Church  in  Connecticut,  I,  240-241. 

*  Beardsley,  I,  245. 

6  Documentary  History  of  New  York,  III,  637,  note. 


478  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

Another  indication  of  the  Episcopal  attitude  is  furnished 
by  a  letter  of  Charles  Inglis,  assistant  rector  of  Trinity  in 
New  York  City.  It  discusses  the  "State  of  the  Anglo 
American  Church,"  and  among  other  things  declares  that 
"all  the  society's  missionaries  proved  themselves  faithful, 
loyal  subjects  in  these  trying  times  ...  all  the  other  clergy 
of  our  Church  have  observed  the  same  line  of  conduct." 
"An  abolition  of  the  Church  of  England,"  he  continued, 
"is  one  of  the  principal  springs  of  the  dissenting  leaders' 
conduct."  l 

The  Episcopal  clergy  found  an  immediate  test  of  their 
loyalty  in  the  liturgical  prayers  for  the  king.  In  most  of 
the  colonies,  the  use  of  those  prayers  was  forbidden  by  act 
of  legislature,  while  many  of  the  clergy  refused  to  read  the 
service  with  the  prayers  omitted.  Inglis  wrote  that,  to 
hold  service  and  not  to  pray  for  the  king  was  against  con- 
science and  duty ;  to  pray  for  the  king  was  to  invite  destruc- 
tion ;  so  they  shut  up  their  Churches  as  the  only  thing  to  be 
done.  There  were  a  few  exceptions  to  this  course  out  of 
New  York  City  and  Philadelphia.  The  ability  to  make  a 
distinction  between  allegiance  to  the  king  and  loyalty  to  the 
religious  needs  of  their  people  seems  to  have  been  rare. 
Mr.  Tyler  of  Norwich,  Connecticut,  was  almost  singular  in 
defining  that  "  Christ's  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,  and  so 
may  exist  without  the  civil  power,"  on  which  ground  he 
omitted  the  obnoxious  prayer  and  continued  to  feed  his 
flock.2 

With  such  intense  pro-English  feeling  animating  the  colo- 
nial clergy  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  it  would  have  been  im- 
possible for  the  people  at  large  to  look  with  favor  on  the 
proposition  for  an  episcopate,  and  the  more  so  as  most  of  the 
laity  of  that  Church  itself  were  opposed  to  the  scheme. 
Suspicion  of  ulterior  motives  was  inevitable.  Fear  of  the 
Church  of  England,  said  John  Adams,  "  contributed  as  much 

1  Documentary  Histoi-y  of  New  York,  III,  637-646. 

2  Beardsley,  I,  320. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  479 

as  any  other  cause  to  arouse  the  attention,  not  only  of  the 
inquiring  mind,  but  of  the  common  people,  and  urged  them 
to  close  thinking  on  the  constitutional  authority  of  parlia- 
ment over  the  colonies."  1 

Of  all  the  circumstances  attending  this  long  dispute  over 
colonial  bishops  the  most  remarkable  is  the  inaction  of  the  English 
authorities  in  England.  The  demand  for  an  episcopate  " 
began  more  than 'one  hundred  years  before  the  Revolution, 
and  though  repeated  every  year  and  with  growing  urgency, 
it  fell  upon  deaf  ears  in  England.  While  the  government 
was  particular  in  many  cases  that  the  Church  should  be 
established  in  the  colonies,  it  was  steadily  indifferent  as  to 
its  necessities.  Even  the  higher  functionaries  of  the  English 
Church,  except  the  occupants  of  the  sees  of  London  and 
Canterbury,  were  equally  careless.  Says  Anderson:  "The 
amount  of  inert  resistance  presented  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  for  the  Colonies  was  too  great  to  be  overcome."  2 
Occasionally  an  excess  of  urgency  would  rouse  a  passing 
interest  of  government,  only  to  die  out  in  a  few  days.3 

Besides  this  indifference  to  religious  needs,  both  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  Church  of  England  were  jealous  of  any 
movement  toward  colonial  independence.  The  establishment 
of  American  bishops  would  have  made  the  colonial  Church 
practically  free  of  the  Church  of  England,  with  a  subjection 
to  the  archiepiscopal  see  hardly  more  than  nominal.  In  the 
colonies  also  the  royal  governors  were  not  in  favor  of  the 
scheme.  An  American  episcopate  would  rob  them  of  certain 

1  Works  of  John  Adams,  X,  185. 

2  History  of  Colonial  Church,  III,  571. 

8  What  the  government  was  looking  for  in  America  was  a  return  for  past 
investment  and  an  unquestioning  obedience.  This  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
famous  story  of  Commissary  Blair's  efforts  to  obtain  endowment  for  his  col- 
lege in  Virginia.  He  obtained  the  charter  and  a  grant  of  £2000,  to  which 
grant  of  money  Attorney-General  Seymour  objected.  To  Blair's  statements, 
that  the  college  was  designed  to  educate  ministers,  and  that  people  in  Vir- 
ginia had  souls  to  be  saved  as  well  as  people  in  England,  Seymour  replied : 
"  Souls !  Damn  your  souls  !  Make  tobacco." 


480  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

prerogatives,  sometimes  valuable  and  always  useful  for  power 
and  dignity.  We  have  noted  the  refusal  of  the  governor  of 
Maryland  to  allow  Mr.  Colebatch  to  go  to  England  for  ordina- 
tion. So  late  as  1771,  Lord  Baltimore  showed  the  same  feel- 
ing. In  that  year  Hugh  Neill  wrote  of  an  address  to  the  king 
adopted  by  some  of  the  Maryland  clergy,  asking  for  a  bishop, 
and  told  of  Baltimore's  opposition.  "  His  Excellency  received 
us  very  coldly,  and  let  us  know,  by  the  advice  no  doubt  of  his 
council,  that  our  Livings  in  Maryland  were  Donatives,  and 
stood  in  no  need  of  the  aid  of  Episcopacy.  This  cast  a  damp 
upon  many." l 

This  unwillingness  of  the  English  authorities  in  both  Church 
and  State  to  accord  the  essential  need  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  America  expressed  itself  even  after  the  independence  of 
the  colonies  was  conceded.  At  the  same  time  all  opposition 
to  an  episcopate  ceased  in  America,  so  soon  as  that  indepen- 
dence made  clear  the  fact,  that  all  political  danger  from  the 
institution  was  eliminated.  Adams,  who  had  heartily  opposed 
in  the  past,  now,  as  minister  of  the  United  States  in  London, 
as  heartily  urged  that  bishops  should  be  sent,  though  the 
urgency,  of  course,  was  only  in  his  personal  capacity.  The 
difficulty  in  England  arose  from  a  sulky  resentment  which 
could  not  reconcile  itself  to  the  separation  from  the  colonies. 
For  three  years  Seabury,  White,  and  Prevoost  waited  in  Eng- 
land till  the  bishops  of  the  English  Church  could  recover 
magnanimity  enough  to  ordain  them.  Finally  Seabury's 
patience  was  exhausted,  and  he  obtained  ordination  at  the 
hands  of  the  non-juring  bishop  of  Aberdeen.  This  was  some- 
thing of  an  object  lesson,  and  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
seeing  that  the  American  brethren  could  not  be  excluded 
from  ordination,  at  last  consented  with  an  ill  grace  to  conse- 
crate White  and  Prevoost.2 

On  the  new  bishops'  return  to  America  they  found  no  voices 
of  opposition.  All  reason  for  it  had  disappeared.  The  question 

1  Perry,  Collections  —  Maryland,  p.  342. 

2  Bacon,  American  Christianity,  p.  211. 


COLONIAL  BISHOPS  481 

of  Church  and  State  in  America  had  been  decided  for  all 
time,  and  the  people  knew  that  an  episcopate  had  in  it  no 
elements  to  affect  the  civil  powers  or  religious  liberty.  There 
was,  indeed,  early  in  1785,  a  warm  discussion  in  one  of  the 
Boston  newspapers  on  the  propriety  of  admitting  bishops  into 
Massachusetts,  but  it  was  an  idle  discussion  and  only  served  to 
draw  upon  the  opponent  the  public  ridicule.1 

1  McMaster,  History  of  People  of  the  United  States,  I,  33,  note. 


2i 


IX 

THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION 

\  WITH  the  dawn  of  the  Revolution  all  the  colonies  were 
;  substantially  ready  for  the  adoption  of  measures,  which  should 
make  the  severance  of  Church  from  State  complete.  Though 
each  had  gone  through  an  experience  peculiar  to  itself,  in 
some  instances  presenting  marked  contrasts  to  the  others,  all 
were  practically  together  in  the  general  desire  for  a  religious 
liberty  entirely  untrammelled  by  the  civil  law,  in  which  the 
terms  conformity  and  dissent  would  become  forever  inappli- 
cable. 

Some  of  the  individual  contrasts  and  peculiarities  may  well 
Rhode  be  recalled  in  brief  review.     To  Rhode  Island  belongs  the 

island.  singular  honor  of  completing  the  colonial  era  as  it  began. 
Starting  with  the  definition  of  the  largest  liberty  possible 
within  the  limits  of  social  order,  Rhode  Island  never  re- 
ceded from  its  fundamental  principle  and  never  admitted 
into  statute  or  practice  any  spirit  of  repression.  Its  "  lively 
experiment "  found  its  way  to  a  perfect  success,  fulfilling  its 
early  promise  without  the  slightest  deviation  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  its  great  founder. 

Penn-  In  this  respect  the  history  of  Pennsylvania,  as  already  seen, 

syivama.  stands  in  sharp  contrast.  We  have  already  noted  that 
the  common  understanding,  that  the  colony  of  Penn  was 
the  chosen  home  of  religious  liberty,  is  very  far  from  the 
truth.  This  it  never  was  with  its  fundamental  law  limiting 
inhabitancy  to  believers  in  Almighty  God,  and  confining  both 
the  franchise  and  office  to  believers  in  "  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  of  the  world";  and  under  pressure  from  England, 
excluding  Romanists  and  disbelievers  in  the  doctrine  of  the 

482 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  483 

Trinity.  Thus  this  colony  entered  the  revolutionary  period 
with  a  restrictive  legislation  unsurpassed  by  that  of  any  other. 
No  act  of  persecution,  indeed,  stains  the  records  of  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  nor  can  we  suppose  that,  beyond  this  deprivation  of 
civil  rights,  there  was  ever  any  danger  that  any  person  could 
be  disturbed  for  reasons  of  religion.  This  fact  in  itself 
makes  it  still  more  remarkable  that,  so  far  as  terms  of  law 
made  definitions,  there  was  less  liberty  in  Pennsylvania  than 
in  theocratic  Massachusetts  and  conforming  Virginia.  After 
1665,  Massachusetts  made  no  so  sharp  inquiry  into  personal 
religious  belief  as  a  condition  for  the  franchise ;  while  Vir- 
ginia, though  prohibiting  non-conformist  worship  until  com- 
pelled to  tolerate,  yet  never  bound  the  franchise  to  individual 
faith. 

In   Massachusetts  the  beautiful   dream  of   a  state   which  Massachu- 
should  be  as  a  City  of  God  —  an  ideal  so  ardently  loved  and  setts- 
tenaciously  held  by  the  early  Puritans  —  had  vanished  out  of 
mind,  more  than  one  hundred  years  before  the  struggle  for 
independence.     While  the  form  of  the  Church  establishment 
remained,  and  the  civil  law  made  provision  for  its  support, 
all  bars  to  dissenting  worship  were  down,  and  all  dissenters 
could  direct  their  rates  to  the  Church  of  their  choice. 

Virginia  had  conceded  a  less  degree  of  liberty.  The  prin-  Virginia, 
ciple  of  establishment,  less  from  religious  reasons  than  from 
considerations  of  state  policy,  retained  to  the  end  a  strong 
grasp  on  the  official  mind.  Each  dissenting  persuasion  had 
been  forced  to  conquer  liberty  for  itself.  The  exception  in 
favor  of  the  Presbyterians  did  not  make  the  way  open  for  the 
Baptists,  who  were  beaten  and  imprisoned  at  the  very  time 
when  the  continental  congress  was  about  to  assemble.  The 
fate  of  the  Methodists  was  much  more  auspicious  because  of 
their  affiliation  with  the  English  Church.  Together  with 
these  conditions,  the  state  of  the  general  public  mind  was  in 
strong  contrast.  Three-fourths  of  the  people  were  outside  of 
the  established  Church.  But  that  Church  numbered  among 
its  adherents  the  majority  of  the  aristocratic  portion  of  the 


484  '  KISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

people,  of  whom,  however,  many  of  the  leading  minds  disap- 
proved the  principle  upon  which  the  Church  was  based. 
They  were  also  disgusted  by  the  immoral  character  of  many 
of  the  clergy.  They  had  not  forgotten  the  "  Parsons'  Cause," 
which  arrayed  the  clergy  against  the  people,  and  they  deeply 
resented  the  attitude  of  the  clergy  on  the  questions  at  issue 
between  the  colonies  and  parliament. 

In  regard  to  this  latter  feature  the  clerical  statistics  are 
very  significant.  At  the  opening  of  the  struggle  there  were 
in  Virginia  ninety-five  parishes  and  ninety-one  ministers  of 
the  established  Church.  At  the  end  of  the  war  twenty-three 
parishes  had  become  extinct,  and  thirty-four  were  vacant; 
while  only  twenty-eight  of  the  clergy  remained  in  the  colony.1 
At  least  two-thirds  of  the  clergy  adhered  to  the  king  and 
found  themselves  out  of  place  in  patriotic  Virginia. 

Still  another  element  entered  into  the  question  in  this 
colony.  By  a  curious  anomaly,  a  large  portion  of  the  Pres- 
byterians, while  dissenting  from  the  established  order  and 
worship,  yet  approved  and  desired  a  civil  law  which  should 
provide  for  the  maintenance  of  religion.  This  desire  was 
formally  presented  in  the  legislature  and  entered  strongly 
into  the  general  discussion. 

Thus  various  circumstances  gave  peculiar  interest  to  the 
final  settlement  in  Virginia.  Indeed,  the  chief  interest  in  all 
the  union  centred  there;  there  the  issue  was  at  this  time 
more  sharply  drawn  than  elsewhere,  and  the  answer  was  more 
clearly  and  positively  pronounced.  In  the  other  colonies  the 
end  of  establishments  came  as  a  natural  consequent  upon 
national  independence,  and  without  much  discussion.  To 
this  statement,  however,  there  were  two  exceptions,  found  in 
the  retention  of  Church  rates  in  Massachusetts  and  Connecti- 
cut until  long  after  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
;  Meanwhile,  another  and  most  powerful  influence  on  the 
\  whole  question  of  Church  and  State  had  been  making  itself 

1  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  1, 153  ;  Anderson,  Colonial  Church, 
III,  274. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  485 

felt.  This  was  the  influence  of  Jonathan  Edwards,  who,  5  Edwards, 
more  than  any  other  man,  settled  the  principle  which  fully 
justified  to  the  American  mind  the  complete  severance  of  the  \ 
state  from  ecclesiastical  functions  or  concern.  Of  his  influ- 
ence there  were  two  marked  peculiarities ;  the  first  of  which 
was,  that  he  introduced  into  the  question  an  element  entirely 
new  to  the  discussion.  Until  Edwards's  day  that  discussion 
had  known  but  two  parties  :  the,  state,  asserting  control  over 
religious  life ;  and  the  mind,  asserting  liberty  of  thought. 
Between  the  two  the  Church  was  in  constant  danger  of  losing 
either  its  freedom  or  its  purity.  Edwards  lifted  up  the  dig- 
nity of  the  Church  itself,  the  eternal  City  of  God,  divinely  City  of  God. 
founded  and  nourished  by  divine  grace.  Over  it  no  human 
authority  could  hold  sway.  Into  it  no  man  could  enter  save 
as  the  grace  of  God  opened  for  him  the  door.  Thus,  the 
Church  was  greater  than  the  state,  and  in  an  entirely  differ- 
ent sphere.  It  was  not  of  this  world  and  could  not  be  sub- 
ject to  the  kingdoms  of  this  world.  It  was  the  holy  household 
of  the  saints,  where  faith,  love,  and  a  spiritual  mind,  drawing 
their  reason  and  life  from  the  word  of  God  and  nurtured  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  must  characterize  all  its  members.  With: 
such  a  constitution  human  policy  and  laws  can  have  nothing 
to  do,  and  a  Church  under  the  direction  of  the  state  becomes 
absurd  and  impossible. 

The  other  peculiarity  of  Edwards's  influence  was  in  the  fact 
that  it  was  exerted  indirectly.  In  this  respect  he  occupies 
a  singular  position  among  reformers.  Other  men,  who  have 
wrought  great  changes  in  human  affairs,  —  such  as  Luther, 
Knox,  Howard,  Wilberforce,  —  give  us  no  reason  for  doubt 
that  the  things  they  accomplished  were  those  they  had  in 
view.  Edwards,  far  beyond  all  men  of  his  time,  smote  the 
staggering  blow  which  made  ecclesiastical  establishments 
impossible  in  America,1  but  we  have  no  proof  that  he  meant 
to  do  anything  of  the  kind.  In  all  his  printed  works  there  is 
not  a  single  direct  attempt  to  discuss  the  question  of  Church 
i  Allen,  Life  of  Edwards. 


486  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

and  State,  and  but  one  treatise,  on  the  "  Qualifications  of 
Church-Members,"  which  makes  room  for  the  subject  even  as 
a  side  issue.  It  is  one  of  the  many  evidences  of  Edwards's 
profound  influence  on  the  minds  of  men  —  more  profound 
than  that  of  any  other  man  since  Luther  —  that  by  the  enun- 
ciation of  a  religious  doctrine,  purely  for  the  sake  of  religion, 
he  should  have  revolutionized  the  minds  of  his  countrymen 
as  to  the  propriety  of  a  civil  institution  of  the  Church. 

Edwards  was  neither  a  professed  statesman  nor  an  agitator 
in  public  affairs.  He  was  distinctly  a  theologian  and  preacher. 
Born  in  1703,  he  early  gave  proof  of  marvellous  intellectual 
powers,  delighting  to  exercise  themselves  in  the  two  fields  of 
nature  and  revelation.  Of  most  acute  analytical  mind  and 
far  reasoning  powers,  had  he  given  his  life  to  science,  he 
would  have  rivalled  the  fame  of  Bacon  or  Cuvier.  As  it  was, 
turning  to  theology,  he  made  a  place  for  his  name  along  with 
those  of  Augustine  and  Calvin. 

Nor  was  he  a  theorist  alone.  Having  a  religious  conscious- 
ness that  seems  fitly  described  by  the  old  record  of  Enoch, 
who  "  walked  with  God,"  his  saintliness  of  character  exerted 
an  influence  no  less  powerful  and  lasting  than  that  of  his 
intellectual  power.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  his  greatest 
influence  on  men  was  by  reason  of  this  marvellous  religious 
personality.1  His  entire  being  was  permeated  by  the  thought 
of  God  and  His  constant  presence,  while  in  pure  holiness  was 
his  supreme  delight.  He  had  a  genius  for  spirituality,  which 
elevated  and  controlled  all  his  thought,  and  made  his  life 
radiant  of  goodness.  Though  theological  systems  change  under 
the  influx  of  purer  and  larger  light,  so  that  the  theological 
world  has  laid  aside  some  of  the  doctrines  on  which  Edwards 
strenuously  insisted,  yet  this  colossal  personality  endures,  a 
constant  object  of  reverence,  and  "the  man  himself  grows 
greater  and  greater." 1 

When  Edwards  came  to  his  charge  in  Northampton  there 
faced  him  the  special  work  made  needful  by  the  low  religious 

1  Weeden,  Social  and  Economic,  History  of  New  England,  II,  700-706. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  487 

condition  of  the  time.  The  Half- Way  Covenant  had  wrought 
its  inevitable  degradation  of  the  Church.  A  wretched  com- 
promise between  political  expediency  and  religion,  it  had 
introduced  into  the  Church  a  large  number  of  people,  who, 
though  of  outward  morality,  were  utter  strangers  to  vital 
piety.  Against  the  evils  of  this  condition  Edwards  struggled 
with  all  the  energy  of  his  mind  and  spirit. 

Unlike  the  majority  of  preachers  in  his  time  and  our  own, 
he  did  not  make  direct  attack  upon  the  obnoxious  covenant, 
as  such,  nor  fulminate  against  special  and  individual  sins. 
He  went  deeper  and,  after  the  manner  of  the  gospel  itself, 
exposed  the  principles  of  righteousness  ;  sure,  when  received, 
to  bring  in  their  train  correction  of  moral  and  religious  ills. 
There  were  two  chords  continually  struck  by  him :  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  infinitely  holy  God,  who  could  not  look  upon 
sin  without  abhorrence ;  and  the  exceeding  sinfulness  of  man, 
who  was  helpless  without  divine  grace.  Man  was  entirely 
dependent  upon  God,  and  God's  grace  alone  could  bring  a 
soul  into  spiritual  life  and  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church, 
into  which  he  could  rightly  come  only  through  the  avenue 
of  sincere  repentance  and  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

While  Edwards  remained  silent  on  the  relation  of  the 
civil  law  to  the  Church,  his  trumpet  gave  no  uncertain 
sound  as  to  the  divine  charter  of  the  Church  and  the  abso- 
lute necessity  for  its  purity.  "  Christ  and  His  Church,"  he 
said,  "like  bridegroom  and  bride,  rejoice  in  each  other  as 
having  a  special  propriety  in  each  other.  All  things  are 
Christ's,  but  He  has  a  special  propriety  in  His  Church. 
There  is  nothing  in  Heaven  or  earth  among  all  the  creations, 
that  is  His  in  that  excellent  manner  that  the  Church  is 
His,  .  .  .  His  portion  and  inheritance."1  As  to  member- 
ship in  the  Church,  he  plainly  taught  that  it  should  be  based 
only  on  gracious  characteristics.2  "  It  is  not  only  .  .  .  moral 
sincerity,  which  is  the  Scripture  qualification  of  admission 
i  Edwards,  Works,  III,  567.  2  IUd.,  I,  104-109. 


488  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

into  the  Christian  Church,  but  .  .  .  regeneration  and  reno- 
vation of  heart."  "  None  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  privi- 
leges of  adult  persons  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  but  such  as 
make  a  profession  of  real  piety." 

His  sentiment  as  to  the  custom  which  had  come  in  vogue 
under  the  Half- Way  Covenant  was  strongly  adverse,  describ- 
ing it  as  injuring  the  Church,  a  "  mere  form  and  ceremony, 
as  subscribing  religious  articles  seems  to  have  done  in  Eng- 
land ;  and,  as  it  is  to  be  feared,  owning  the  covenant,  as  it  is 
called,  has  too  much  done  in  New  England ;  it  being  a  pre- 
vailing custom  for  persons  to  neglect  this  until  they  come  to 
be  married,  and  then  to  do  it  for  their  credit's  sake  and  that 
their  children  may  be  baptized." 1  "  The  effect  of  this  method 
of  proceeding  in  the  Churches  of  New  England,  which  have 
fallen  into  it,  is  this  —  some  are  received,  under  the  notion 
of  their  being  visible  saints  or  professing  saints,  who  yet  at 
the  same  time  are  open  professors  of  heinous  wickedness ;  I 
mean  the  wickedness  of  living  in  known  impenitence  and 
unbelief.  .  .  .  They  do  not  profess  to  be  as  yet  lorn  again, 
but  look  on  themselves  as  really  unconverted,  as  having  never 
unfeignedly  accepted  of  Christ.  .  .  .  And  accordingly  it  is 
known  all  over  the  town  where  they  live,  that  they  make  no 
pretensions  to  any  sanctifying  grace  already  obtained ;  nor  of 
consequence  are  they  looked  upon  as  other  than  unconverted 
persons.  Now,  can  this  be  judged  the  comely  order  of  the 
gospel?  Or  shall  God  be  supposed  the  author  of  such 
confusion?"2 

Once  more : 3  "  The  Church  is  represented  in  Scripture  as 
the  household  of  G-od.  They  are  in  a  peculiar  manner  in- 
trusted with  the  care  of  His  name  and  honor  in  the  world, 
the  interests  of  His  kingdom,  the  care  of  His  jewels  and 
most  precious  things :  and  would  not  common  sense  teach  an 
earthly  prince  not  to  admit  into  his  household  such  as  he  had 
no  reason  to  look  upon  as  friends  and  loyal  subjects  in  their 
hearts?" 

i  Edwards,  Works,  I,  115.         2  Ibidti  I}  189>          8  Ibidti  ^  231. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  489 

With  such  principles,  the  dominant  factor  in  the  question 
of  Church  and  State  is  neither  civil  polity  nor  individual 
liberty,  but  that  which  is  higher  than  both,  the  Church  of  the 
living  God,  the  Ark  of  the  everlasting  covenant  which  no 
man  must  touch  with  unhallowed  hands.  Into  this  Church 
none  can  enter  save  those  whom  God's  grace  shall  "call." 
Over  such  a  divinely  constituted  thing  it  becomes  forever 
impossible  that  human  governors  and  legislators  shall  attempt 
control.  It  is  forever  the  imperial  City  of  God,  where  grace 
alone  shall  reign  and  God's  word  is  the  only  law. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Edwards  himself  by  any  direct  ar- 
gument applied  these  consequents  to  existing  religious  estab- 
lishments. Occupied  with  zeal  for  the  religious  elevation 
of  his  people,  his  intent  was  to  so  preach  that  souls  should 
be  converted  and  the  Church  made  pure.  He  welcomed  the 
"  Great  Awakening "  as  fulfilling  the  chief  desire  of  his 
heart.  But  at  the  same  time  he  put  into  the  hand  of  his 
countrymen  the  key,  which  was  to  solve  their  greatest,  and 
the  age-long,  problem.  There  was,  indeed,  widespread  re- 
volt against  the  old  theory  of  Augustine,  but  not  until 
Edwards  spoke  were  men  able  to  demonstrate  its  falsity. 
Augustine,  Hooker,  Williams,  and  Edwards  —  all  spoke  con- 
trolling words :  Augustine,  for  a  Church  mistakenly  longing 
for  the  buttress  of  human  law ;  Hooker,  for  a  comprehensive- 
ness that  reduced  religion  to  nationality ;  Williams,  for  the 
inalienable  rights  of  the  human  conscience;  and  Edwards, 
best  of  all,  for  God's  sole  prerogative  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Grace  and  in  the  Church,  "which  He  had  purchased  with 
His  own  blood."  It  is  only  in  the  understanding  that  the 
principles  of  Edwards  had  profoundly  affected  the  minds  of 
his  generation,  that  we  can  account  for  the  ready  and  almost 
universal  acceptance  of  the  measures  for  disestablishment  in 

America. 

Of  the  events  attending  those  measures  it  is  first  in  place 
to  note  a  congressional  action,  which  illustrated  the  progress  Congress. 
of  liberty.     This  was  the  effort  made  by  the  colonial  con- 


490 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


gress  in  1774  to  enlist  the  province  of  Quebec  in  resistance 
to  England.  The  immense  majority  of  the  people  of  that 
province  were  Roman  Catholics,  but  it  was  greatly  desired 
that  they  should  make  common  cause  with  the  revolting 
colonies.  To  this  end  the  congress  adopted  a  "masterly 
address,  drawn  by  Dickinson,"  inviting  their  adhesion  to  the 
colonial  cause,  and  in  which  "all  old  religious  jealousies 
were  condemned  as  low-minded  infirmities." l  This  was  the 
sole  national  reference  to  the  subject  of  religion,  until  the 
Convention  of  1787  embedded  in  the  Federal  Constitution 
the  principle  of  full  religious  liberty. 

Virginia.  In  Virginia^  the  whole  question  of  establishment  and  lib- 

erty was  forced  on  the  immediate  attention  of  the  new  state 
by  the  actual  presence  of  that  religious  persecution  noted  in 
our  sketch  of  that  colony.  In  the  counties  of  Orange,  Spot- 
sylvania,  and  Culpepper  Baptist  preachers  were  beaten  and 

Madison.  imprisoned.  On  January  27,  1774,  Madison  wrote  to  Brad- 
ford:2 "That  diabolical,  hell-conceived  principle  of  persecu- 
tion rages  among  some.  .  .  .  There  are  at  this  time  in  the 
adjacent  county  not  less  than  five  or  six  well-meaning  men 
in  close  jail,  for  publishing  their  religious  sentiments,  which 
in  the  main  are  very  orthodox.  ...  I  have  squabbled  and 
scolded,  abused  and  ridiculed  so  long  about  it,  that  I  am  with- 
out common  patience.  So  I  must -beg  you  to  pity  me,  and 
pray  for  liberty  of  conscience  to  all."  This  well  illustrates 
the  spirit  of  the  man,  to  whom,  even  more  than  to  Jeffer- 
son, Virginia  was  indebted  for  her  clear  definition  of  reli- 
gious rights. 

Convention.  The  state  convention  met  in  1776,  and  received  many  peti- 
tions from  various  parts  of  the  state,  expressing  in  different 
phrases  the  widespread  desire  for  relief  from  all  burdens  on 
conscience  and  worship.3  They  asked  "  protection  in  the  full 
exercise  of  their  modes  of  worship,"  exemption  from  "pay- 

1  Bancroft,  United  States,  VII,  169. 

2  Rives,  Madison,  I,  44. 

8  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  I,  139. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  491 

ment  of  all  taxes  for  any  Church  whatever,"  the  disestablish- 
ment of  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  removal  of  all 
restraints  on  the  "right  of  private  judgment."  The  pres- 
bytery of  Hanover  presented  an  elaborate  memorial,  demand- 
ing the  repeal  of  all  laws  of  establishment  or  religious  pref- 
erence ;  that  all  sects  should  be  equally  protected,  and  that 
the  maintenance  of  the  Churches  should  be  left  to  voluntary 
contributions.  "We  conceive,"  said  the  memorial,  "that 
when  our  blessed  Saviour  declares  His  kingdom  not  of  this 
world,  He  renounces  all  dependence  on  state  power.  .  .  . 
We  are  persuaded  that,  if  mankind  were  left  in  quiet  posses- 
sion of  their  unalienable  rights  and  privileges,  Christianity, 
as  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  would  continue  to  prevail  and 
flourish  in  the  greatest  purity  by  its  own  native  excellence 
and  under  the  all-disposing  providence  of  God." l  In  these 
petitions  all  varieties  of  religious  persuasion  were  repre- 
sented, with  the  exception  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
Methodists.  The  latter  had  not  as  yet  separated  from  the 
Church,  and  joined  the  Episcopalians  in  petitioning  against 
all  measures  of  disestablishment. 

The  convention,  formally  severing  political  relations  to 
England,  set  about  the  organization  of  a  state  government, 
and  adopted  the  famous  BILL  OF  RIGHTS.2  The  bill  was  Bill  of 
drawn  by  George  Mason,  but  the  sixteenth  section,  referring  Rishts 
to  religion,  was  proposed  by  Patrick  Henry.  The  draft  of 
tha  section  presented  by  Henry  read  :  "  That  Religion,  or  the 
duty  that  we  owe  our  Creator,  and  the  manner  of  discharging 
it,  can  be  directed  only  by  reason  and  conviction,  and  not  by 
force  or  violence  ;  and,  therefore  (that  all  men  should  enjoy 
the  fullest  toleration  in  the  exercise  of  religion  according  to 
the  dictates  of  conscience,  unpunished  and  unrestrained  by  the 
magistrate,  unless  under  color  of  religion  any  man  disturb 
the  peace,  the  happiness,  or  safety  of  society ;  and),  that  it  is 

1  Schaff,  "  Beligious  Liberty,"  American  Historical  Association,  1887-1888. 

2  Herring,  Statutes,  IX,  111 ;  Rives,  Madison,  I,  140  ;  American  Histori- 
cal Association,  1886-1887,  p.  23. 


492  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  mutual  duty  of  all  to  practice  Christian  forbearance,  love, 
and  charity  towards  each  other.'* 

To  that  portion  of  the  section  here  put  in  brackets  Madison 
objected,  on  the  ground  that  there  was  a  "  dangerous  implica- 
tion "  in  the  word  toleration,  as  well  as  in  the  clause  referring 
I  >fothe  magistrate.  "  Toleration  belonged  to  a  system  where 
was  an  established  Church,  and  where  a  certain  liberty  of 
worship  was  granted,  not  of  right,  but  of  grace ;  while  the 
interposition  of  the  magistrate  might  annul  the  grant.".  The 
argument  of  Madison  effected  the  striking  out  of  this/obnox- 
ious portion  and  substituting  for  it  the  sentence,  **all  men 
are  equally  entitled  to  the  full  and  free  exercise  of  religion, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  conscience."  He  also  secured 
the  addition  of  a  restraining  clause :  "  No  man,  or  class  of 
men,  ought  on  account  of  religion  to  be  invested  with  peculiar 
emoluments  or  privileges,  nor  subjected  to  any  penalties  or 
disabilities,  unless  under  color  of  religion  the  preservation  of 
equal  liberty  and  the  existence  of  the  State  are  manifestly 
endangered."  Thus  the  definition  of  the  Virginia  Bill  of 
Rights  took  its  final  shape,  expressing  the  best  conception 
of  religious  liberty  that  had  as  yet  found  utterance  outside 
of  Rhode  Island.  Rives  justly  says  :  "  The  amendment  by 
Madison  itself  forms  an  era  in  the  history  of  American  liberty. 
In  discarding  a  term  hitherto  consecrated  in  some  degree  as 
a  symbol  of  liberty,  but  intrinsically  fallacious,  it  erected  a 
new  and  loftier  platform  for  the  fabric  of  religious  freedom." 
This  was  the  beginning  of  disestablishment,  and  laid  down 
the  broad  principle  according  to  which,  one  after  another,  the 
various  perquisites  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Virginia  were 
in  the  following  years  taken  away  by  law,  until  the  work  was 
Acts  of  completed  in  the  "  Declaratory  Act "  of  1785.  The  legisla- 
legisiature.  ture  Q£  177^  meeting  soon  after  the  convention,  proceeded  at 
once  to  give  partial  effect  to  the  action  of  the  latter  in  a  law 
exempting  dissenters  from  the  support  of  the  Church  estab- 
lished by  law.1  Another  act  suspended  the  laws  which  fixed 

i  Hening,  IX,  164. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  493 

the  salary  of  the  clergy,  but  did  not  disturb  the  Church  in 
the  possession  of  the  glebes.  This  act  of  suspension  was 
repeated  at  each  successive  session  until  1779. * 

These  acts  and  many  petitions  for  and  against  the  establish- 
ment gave  rise  to  long  and  impassioned  debate.  Edmund 
Pendleton,  the  speaker,  was  a  strenuous  advocate  for  estab- 
lishment, and  was  ably  seconded  by  Robert  Carter  Nicholas. 
Jefferson  was  their  great  opponent  and  carried  the  assembly  Jefferson, 
with  him.2  Jefferson  in  his  Autobiography  describes  the 
debates  as  "  the  severest  struggles  in  which  I  have  ever  been 
engaged.  .  .  .  Although  the  majority  of  our  citizens  are 
dissenters,  a  majority  of  the  legislature  were  Churchmen. 
Among  them,  however,  were  some  reasonable  and  liberal  men, 
who  enabled  us  on  some  points  to  obtain  feeble  majorities.  .  .  . 
In  the  bill  now  passed  was  inserted  an  express  reservation  of 
the  question,  Whether  a  general  assessment  should  not  be 
established  by  law  on  every  one  to  the  support  of  the  pastor 
of  his  choice."  This  was  disputed  "from  session  to  session 
until  1779,  when  the  question  against  a  general  assessment 
was  finally  carried,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Anglican 
Church  entirely  put  down."  3 

The  agency  of  Jefferson  in  the  movement  toward  disestab- 
lishment was  that  of  a  leader.  His  description  of  the  previous 
condition  of  "  religious  slavery,"  which  had  obtained  in  Vir- 
ginia, is  almost  impassioned,  and  abounds  in  sentences  which 
have  become  proverbial.4  "It  is  error  alone  that  needs  the 
support  of  government.  Truth  can  stand  by  itself."  "  Gov- 
ernment has  nothing  to  do  with  opinion."  "  Comprehension 
makes  hypocrites,  not  converts."  "  Why  subject  it  (religion) 
to  coercion  ?  To  produce  uniformity.  But  is  uniformity  of 
opinion  desirable?  No  more  than  of  face  and  of  stature. 
Difference  of  opinion  is  an  advantage  in  religion ;  the  several 
sects  perform  the  office  of  a  Censor  Morum  over  each  other." 

The  work  was  not  completed  by  the  legislature  of  1776. 

1  Hening,  IX,  312,  469,  579.         8  Jefferson,  Works,  I,  39. 

2  Howison,  Virginia,  II,  187.        4  Notes  on  Virginia,  pp.  262-264,  266,  267. 


494  RISE  OP  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  Church  of  England  was  still  spoken  of  as  established. 
Some  of  its  perquisites  remained.  The  clergy  of  that  Church 
alone  could  marry  without  a  special  license ;  while  the  vestry 
still  remained  in  possession  of  civil  functions.  Down  to  1781 
legislation  was  concerned  with  vestries,  and  with  dividing  and 
uniting  parishes.  Instances  of  such  action  are  found  scattered 
through  the  ninth  volume  of  Hening.  Two  other  actions  are 
worth  noting.1  One  was  the  exclusion  by  the  constitution  of 
1776  of  all  ministers  from  membership  in  the  legislature  or 
privy  council.  The  other  was  a  law  allowing  members  of 
"  some  religious  societies,  particularly  Methodists  and  Baptists, 
to  serve  (in  the  army)  under  officers  of  like  faith." 

In  1779,  the  question  of  ministers'  salaries  was  met  by  an 
act  repealing  all  acts  providing  salaries,  save  as  affecting 
arrearages.2  An  act  of  1780  created  the  office  of  overseer 
of  the  poor,  to  succeed  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  vestries 
touching  the  poor,  as  under  former  laws.3  In  the  same  year 
dissenting  ministers,  Quakers,  and  Mennonites  were  em- 
powered to  celebrate  marriages,  without  license  or  publication 
of  banns.4 

Effects.  The  immediate  effect  of  disestablishment  was  disastrous  to 

the  Episcopal  Church.  Most  of  its  clergy  were  deprived  of 
support,  and,  as  many  of  them  were  loyal  to  the  king  and 
continued  to  pray  for  the  royal  family,  they  were  subjected 
to  much  trouble  and  danger.5  The  more  thoughtful  of  the 
Church,  and  those  who  sympathized  with  the  colonial  cause, 
sought  to  retrieve  its  fortunes  by  obtaining  incorporation  by 
the  state.  This  they  secured  in  an  act  of  1784  for  "Incor- 
porating the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  6  The  act  con- 
tained a  curious  proviso  that  if  the  revenue  of  any  Church 
exceeded  £800,  the  fact  was  to  be  reported  to  the  general 
assembly.  But  the  act  was  short-lived.  The  proviso  savored 
of  civil  interference  with  the  Church,  and  gave  to  the  Episco- 

1  Hening,  IX,  117-548.      *  Ibid.,  X,  362,  381. 

2  Ibid.,  X,  197.  5  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  1, 139. 
8  Ibid.,  X,  288.  «  Hening,  XI,  632. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  495 

pal  Church  a  legislative  preference.  On  this  account  the  act 
was  almost  immediately  repealed,  and  made  place  for  another 
act  which  annulled  all  laws  favoring  the  Church  of  England, 
dissolved  all  vestries  as  related  to  the  state,  and  left  to  the 
Church  itself  the  entire  regulation  of  its  own  affairs.1  This 
was  final  and  complete  disestablishment,  and  from  the  passage 
of  the  act  the  State-Church  of  Virginia  ceased  to  exist. 

At  the  same  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act,  the  legislature 
was  urged  to  provide  "  for  the  support  of  some  sort  of  wor-  Support  of 
ship."  2  Many  petitions  were  presented  praying  for  a  general  relision- 
assessment  for  the  support  of  religious  teachers,  and  many 
opposing  the  prayer  and  asking  "  that  no  steps  be  taken  in  aid 
of  religion,  but  that  it  be  left  to  its  own  superior  and  success- 
ful influence."  The  committee  to  which  the  petitions  were 
referred  brought  in  a  "  Bill  for  establishing  a  provision  for 
teachers  of  the  Christian  religion."  Their  report  emphasized 
two  principles :  1st,  That  the  state  ought  to  give  support  to 
the  general  diffusion  of  Christianity ;  and  2d,  That  the  state 
ought  not  to  give  any  preeminence  among  differing  sects. 
With  these  in  view,  the  bill  provided  for  a  general  assessment 
by  civil  authority,  and  allowed  each  ratepayer  to  indicate 
the  Church  which  should  receive  the  amount  of  his  tax.  In 
this  latter  respect  the  proposed  law  resembled  the  enactments 
in  New  England  for  the  relief  of  those  not  of  the  "estab- 
lished order."  The  bill  was  approved  by  Washington,  Henry, 
R.  H.  Lee,  and  Marshall,  and  strongly  opposed  by  Madison 
and  Jefferson.  "  Chiefly  through  the  influence  of  Patrick 
Henry  "  (Hawks)  it  passed  to  the  second  reading,  when  final 
action  was  postponed,  that  the  popular  mind  might  be  dis- 
covered. For  this  purpose  it  was  ordered  that  the  bill  be 
printed  for  general  distribution,  and  the  people  be  desired 
to  send  up  to  the  next  legislature  the  expression  of  their 
opinions. 

The  effect  of  this  appeal  to  the  people  was  a  flood  of  pe- 

1  Hening,  XI,  536. 

2  Hawks,  I,  156-173 ;  Rives,  Madison,  I,  561-633. 


496  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

titions,  both  for  and  against  the  bill,  presented  to  the  legis- 
lature of  1785.  In  their  petitions  the  advocates  for  the  bill 
dwelt  upon  the  "  decay  of  public  morals,"  and  with  regard  to 
it  the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  clergy  found  their  first 
point  of  union.  Of  course  the  former  were  expected  to  favor 
the  bill,  but  the  support  of  the  latter  was  a  surprise.  Madi- 
son so  regarded  the  address  from  the  "  united  clergy  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  —  that  a  general  assessment  ought  to 
be  extended  to  those  who  profess  the  public  worship  of  the 
Deity."  Madison  wrote  to  Monroe:  "The  Episcopal  people 
are  generally  for  it,  though  I  think  the  zeal  of  some  of  them 
has  cooled.  The  laity  of  the  other  sects  are  generally  unani- 
mous on  the  other  side.  So  are  all  the  clergy  except  the 
Presbyterians,  who  seem  as  ready  to  set  up  an  establishment 
which  is  to  take  them  in  as  they  were  to  pull  down  that 
which  shut  them  out.  I  do  not  know  a  more  shameful  con- 
trast than  might  be  found  in  their  memorials  on  the  latter 
and  former  occasions."  This  critic  of  Presbyterian  incon- 
sistency took  pleasure  in  one  memorial  "  from  certain  inhab- 
itants of  the  county  of  Rockbridge  (apparently  Presbyterian 
laymen)  deprecating  the  interference  of  the  legislature  in  aid 
of  religion  as  unequal,  impolitic,  and  beyond  their  power." 
In  another  place  he  wrote,  "  In  the  present  form  it  (the  bill) 
excludes  all  but  Christian  sects.  The  Presbyterian  clergy 
have  remonstrated  against  any  narrow  principles,  but  indirectly 
favor  a  more  comprehensive  establishment." 

The  effect  of  the  measure,  if  it  had  passed  into  law,  would 
have  been  to  establish  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the 
state,  making  all  Christian  Churches  stipendiaries  on  legis- 
lative support,  and  thus,  by  reason  of  the  public  tax  involved, 
oppressing  all  non-Christians,  whether  Jews  or  infidels.  This 
suited  neither  Madison  nor  Jefferson,  who  desired  the  civil 
law  to  entirely  refrain  from  all  discriminations,  and  to  accord 
an  equal  liberty  to  all  varieties  of  religious  belief  and 
unbelief. 

In  the  midst  of  the  discussion  Madison,  at  the  instance  of 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  497 

Mason  and  others  and  for  a  direct  appeal  to  the  people,  drew 
up  his  famous  "  Memorial  and  Remonstrance,"  in  which  he  "  Memorial 
argued,  on  the  basis  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  that  religion  did 
not  come  within  the  cognizance  of  government,  for  either 
the  support  of  worship  or  inquiry  into  individual  faith.  This 
remonstrance,  being  circulated  among  the  people  for  signature, 
was  returned  to  the  legislature  with  so  overwhelming  demon- 
stration of  popular  opinion  that  the  pending  bill  was  at  once 
abandoned  without  further  struggle. 

On  this  the  champions  of  liberty,  not  satisfied  with  a  merely 
negative  victory,  proceeded  to  secure  such  action  as  would 
render  impossible  all  future  attempts  at  civil  interference 
with  religion.  Immediately  on  the  failure  of  the  bill  for 
support  of  religious  teachers,  there  was  brought  up  the 
"Declaratory  Act,"  which  was  drawn  up  by  Jefferson  and 
ably  advocated  by  Madison.  The  act  deservedly  ranks 
among  the  great  charters  of  human  liberty.1  It  was  made 
law  in  October,  1785,  and  is  entitled  "An  Act  Establishing 
Religious  Freedom."  Jefferson  says,  "  I  prepared  the  act  in 
1777,  but  it  was  not  reported  to  the  assembly  till  1779,  and 
not  passed  until  1785,  and  then  by  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Madi- 
son." 2  It  thus  appears  that  this  great  measure  lay  on  the 
table  of  the  assembly  throughout  the  vexing  debates  of  the 
past  six  years,  waiting  until  the  discussions  should  prepare 
the  legislature  for  the  adoption  of  its  broad  principles. 

When  it  came  up  for  final  action,  according  to  Jefferson,3 
it  "  still  met  with  opposition,  but  with  some  mutilations  in 
the  preamble  it  was  finally  passed."  This  preamble  dwelt 
on  the  injustice  and  immorality  of  all  interference  by  the 
magistrate  with  the  religion  of  the  individual,  and  of  all  civil 
regulation  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity  and  its  Author.  Jefferson  records :  "  A  singular 
proposition  proved  that  its  protection  was  meant  to  be  uni- 
versal. Where  the  preamble  declares  that  coercion  is  a 

1  Hening,  Statutes,  XII,  84. 

2  Works,  I,  174.       8  Ibid.,  I,  45. 


498  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

departure  from  the  plan  of  the  holy  author  of  our  religion, 
an  amendment  was  proposed  by  inserting  the  words,  '  Jesus 
Christ,'  so  that  it  should  read,  'The  plan  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  holy  author,  &c.'  The  insertion  was  rejected  by  a  great 
majority,  in  proof  that  they  meant  to  comprehend  within 
the  mantle  of  its  protection  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile,  the 
Christian  and  Mahometan,  the  Hindu  and  Infidel  of  every 
denomination." 1 

After  the  exhibition  of  principles  in  the  preamble  the  act 
proceeds :  — 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly,  That  no  man 
shall  be  compelled  to  frequent  or  support  any  religious  wor- 
ship, place,  or  ministry  whatever;  nor  shall  be  enforced, 
restrained,  molested,  or  burthened  in  his  body  or  goods,  nor 
shall  otherwise  suffer  on  account  of  his  religious  opinions  or 
belief ;  but  that  all  men  shall  be  free  to  profess,  and  by  argu- 
ment to  maintain,  their  opinions  in  matters  of  religion,  and 
that  the  same  shall  in  no  wise  diminish,  enlarge,  or  affect 
their  civil  capacities." 

A  curious  attendant  upon  this  act  arose  from  the  conscious- 
ness that  it  was  legislative,  and  not  a  part  of  the  fundamental 
constitution.  To  meet  this  condition,  and  the  possibility  of 
a  future  repeal,  the  assembly  adopted  another  section,  which 
was  rather  a  declaration  of  opinion  than  an  enactment  of  law. 
After  disclaiming,  in  view  of  the  equal  powers  of  future 
assemblies,  that  the  act  was  passed  as  irrevocable,  the  section 
asserts :  "  yet  we  are  free  to  declare,  and  do  declare,  that  the 
rights  hereby  asserted  are  of  the  natural  rights  of  mankind, 
and  that,  if  any  act  shall  hereafter  be  passed  to  repeal  the 

1  This  description  is  largely  responsible  for  the  widely  circulated  slander 
that  Jefferson  himself  was  an  infidel,  which  in  future  years  gave  so  much  of 
bitterness  to  political  discussion.  Dr.  Hawks  (Ecclesiastical  Contributions, 
I,  173)  says  :  "  There  is  reason  in  his  case  to  believe  that,  under  cover  of  an 
attack  upon  a  religious  establishment,  a  blow  was  aimed  at  Christianity  it- 
self. ...  It  was  not  necessary  in  securing  such  protection  to  degrade,  not 
the  establishment,  but  Christianity  itself  to  a  level  with  the  voluptuous  Mo- 
hammedan, or  the  worship  of  Juggernaut."  (!) 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  499 

present  or  to  narrow  its  operation,  such  act  will  be  an  infringe- 
ment of  natural  right." 

So  Virginia  settled  for  herself  the  principle  of  religious^ 
freedom  on  the  broadest  possible  basis  ;  and,  two  years  after,v 
in  the  celebrated  "Ordinance  of  1787,"  extended  it  to  the  Ordinance 
Northwestern  Territory,  by  the  section:  —  "No  person,  de-  ofl787- 
meaning  himself  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner,  shall 
ever  be  molested  on  account  of  his  mode  of  worship  or  reli- 
gious sentiments,  in  the  said  territory."  The  necessary  re- 
adjustment of  affairs,  owing  to  the  claims  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  to  the  property  of  the  old  State-Church,  and  also  to 
various  constructions  of  the  law  and  of  legislative  power 
under  it,  entailed  future  legislative  and  judicial  action,  which 
will  be  noted  hereafter.  At  present  we  turn  to  the  action  of 
the  other  colonies  during  the  period  of  the  Revolution. 

In  none  of  them  was  there  such  various  and  sustained  dis- 
cussion as  in  Virginia.  In  most  of  them  a  few  words  of  con- 
stitutional provision,  with  more  or  less  of  freedom,  settled  the 
question  for  the  time.  That  which  is  most  marked  by  the 
comparison  of  the  different  actions  is  the  varying  degree  of 
ability  to  understand  the  true  nature  of  religious  freedom. 
No  other  colony,  save  Rhode  Island,  equalled  Virginia's  broad 
and  comprehensive  statement,  while  some  of  them  fell  far 
short  of  that  standard. 

In  New  Hampshire  the  constitution  of  1776  made  no  pro-  New  Hamp- 
vision  in  regard  to  religious  matters.  A  state  convention  in  shire' 
1779  submitted  another  constitution  to  the  people,  which  was 
not  adopted,  but  its  utterance  on  the  rights  of  conscience  may 
be  noted  here  as  indicating  the  growth  of  sentiment.  The 
section  read :  "  The  future  legislation  of  this  state  shall  make 
no  laws  to  infringe  the  rights  of  Conscience,  or  any  other 
of  the  natural,  unalterable  Rights  of  Men,  or  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  GOD,  or  against  the  Protestant  religion." l  Another 
convention  in  1781  adopted  a  Bill  of  Rights  similar  to  that 
of  the  Massachusetts  convention  of  1780,  and  in  an  address 
i  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  V,  155. 


500  RISE   OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

thereon  remarked :  "  We  have  endeavored  to  ascertain  and 
define  the  most  important  and  essential  rights  of  man.  We 
have  distinguished  between  alienable  and  unalienable  rights. 
For  the  former  of  which  men  may  receive  an  equivalent ;  for 
the  latter,  or  the  rights  of  conscience,  they  can  receive  none : 
The  world  itself  being  wholly  inadequate  to  the  purchase. 
'  For  what  is  a  man  profited,  though  he  should  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ? '  The  various  modes  of  wor- 
ship among  mankind  are  founded  in  their  various  sentiments 
and  beliefs  concerning  the  Great  Object  of  all  religious  wor- 
ship and  adoration  .  .  .  therefore,  to  Him  alone,  and  not  to 
man,  are  they  accountable  for  them." 

This  seems  to  reach  far  enough,  but  in  spite  of  it,  the  con- 
stitution of  1781,  as  also  that  of  1784,  left  unchanged  the  old 
•*•       colonial  law  which  made  the  Church  a  town  institution  and 
its  support  a  matter  of  public  tax,  and  discriminated  also  in 
favor  of  the  Protestant  religion.1 

Massacim-  In  Massachusetts  the  first  state  constitution  was  formed  in 
1780,  in  which  the  Bill  of  Rights  contained  the  following  lan- 
guage :  "  As  the  happiness  of  a  people,  and  the  good  order 
and  preservation  of  civil  government,  essentially  depend  upon 
piety,  religion,  and  morality,  .  .  .  the  legislature  shall  from 
time  to  time  authorize  and  require  the  several  towns  and  par- 
ishes ...  to  make  suitable  provision,  at  their  own  expense, 
for  the  institution  of  the  public  worship  of  God."  2  Thus  the 
state  retained  the  old  colonial  principle  which  gave  to  the 
Church  a  civil  status.  Every  ratepayer  was,  as  in  the  past 
fifty  years,  allowed  to  indicate  his  preference  as  to  the  Church 
which  should  be  benefited  by  his  tax,  while  those,  who  had  no 
choice,  were  required  to  pay  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  State 
Congregational  Church.  In  the  end,  it  will  be  seen  that,  the 
system  worked  special  damage  to  the  Church  thus  preferred 
by  the  law. 

In  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  no  state   constitutions 

1  New  Hampshire  Historical  Society,  V,  176. 

2  Meligion  in  America,  p.  266. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  501 

were  formed.  Without  formal  action  the  colonies  passed  into  Connecticut 
states  of  the  American  Union  under  their  old  charters,  and 
no  changes  were  made  affecting  the  civic  relations  of  the 
Church.  Rhode  Island  continued  in  the  way  of  the  broad 
liberty  which  had  obtained  from  its  foundation ;  while  Con- 
necticut retained  its  State-Church  until  the  second  decade  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  The  records  of  Connecticut  contain 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  legislation  during  and  after  the 
revolutionary  period.1  An  act  in  1778  exempted  Separates 
(though  Congregationalists)  from  taxes  for  support  of  the 
established  Church.  Many  Churches  and  "societies"  were 
authorized  at  different  times.  In  1784  was  passed  an  "  Act 
for  securing  the  Rights  of  Conscience."  The  law  enacted, 
that  no  persons  professing  the  Christian  religion,  who  soberly 
dissented  from  the  worship  and  ministry  established  by  law, 
and  attended  worship  by  themselves,  should  incur  a  penalty 
by  not  attending  the  established  worship :  that  Christians  of 
every  denomination,  who  attended  and  helped  maintain  wor- 
ship according  to  their  consciences,  should  not  be  taxed  for 
the  support  of  other  worship ;  that  those  who  did  not  belong 
to  any  other  society  were  to  be  taxed  for  the  support  of  the 
State-Church ;  and  that  all  Protestant  dissenters  should  have 
liberty  to  use  the  same  powers  for  maintaining  their  respec- 
tive societies  as  belonged  to  societies  established  by  law. 

The  effect  of  this  last  provision  was  to  continue  the  colo- 
nial practice  by  which  all  church  support  was  collected  by 
town  officers  and  distributed  according  to  the  indicated  pref- 
erences of  the  taxpayers.  The  act  is  further  notable  as 
restricting  liberty  to  Protestants,  and  insisting  that  every 
person  should  attend  and  help  maintain  some  form  of  Chris- 
tian worship.  The  liberty  of  Connecticut  did  not  yet  make 
room  for  the  Jew  or  the  Romanist,  and  lagged  far  behind  the 
new-found  freedom  of  Virginia. 

The  action  in  New  York  makes  but  a  short  tale.     The  peo-  New  York. 
pie  of  the  colony,  in  the  proportion  of  fifteen  to  one,  were 

i  Connecticut  State  Records,  1, 11 ;  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  400. 


502  EISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

opposed  to  all  forms  of  civil  restriction  on  religion,  and  dis- 
owned the  fiction  so  sedulously  maintained  by  the  govern- 
ment, that  the  act  of  1693  had  established  the  Anglican 
Church.  The  nameless  Church  instituted  by  that  act  went 
down  with  the  first  assault  of  war:  and  the  state  conven- 
tion of  1777  guarded  the  rights  of  conscience  and  religious 
worship  from  interference  by  the  civil  power.  The  35th 
Article  expressly  abrogated  all  laws  and  parts  of  law,  com- 
mon or  statute,  which  "might  be  construed  to  establish  or 
maintain  any  particular  denomination  of  Christians  or  their 
ministers."  The  30th  Article  ordained  that  "The  free  exer- 
cise and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship,  with- 
out discrimination  or  preference,  shall  forever  hereafter  be 
allowed  within  this  State  to  all  mankind."  The  legislature 
of  1784  repealed  the  "  Settling  Act "  of  1693  and  all  subse- 
quent acts  "  which  do  grant  certain  emoluments  and  privi- 
leges to  the  Episcopal  Church." 

The  liberty  thus  asserted  was,  however,  qualified  by  two 
restrictions.  The  one  was  a  provision  that  all  persons  natu- 
ralized by  the  State  should  take  an  oath  of  abjuration  of  all 
foreign  allegiance  and  subjection  in  all  matters,  "  ecclesiasti- 
cal as  well  as  civil."  There  can  be  but  one  interpretation  of 
the  ecclesiastical  reference.  1It  was  intended  to  exclude 

Romanists.  Roman  Catholics  from  citizenship.  The  other  restriction 
was  the  exclusion  of  clergymen  from  public  office,  on  the 
ground  that  they  "  ought  not  to  be  diverted  from  their  great 
duties  of  the  service  of  God  and  the  care  of  souls."  This, 
the  31st  Article,  was  an  infringement  upon  the  rights  of  a 
certain  class  of  men  on  account  of  religion,  while  the  reason 
alleged  was  one  of  which  a  political  convention  could  not 
properly  take  cognizance.2  Later  New  York  constitutions 
did  away  with  both  these  restrictions. 

New  Jersey.  The  New  Jersey  constitution  of  1776  decreed  to  every  one 
"  the  inestimable  privilege  of  worshipping  God  according  to 
the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  but  at  the  same  time 

1  Story,  §  114.  2  Baird,  Religion  in  America,  p.  268. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  EEVOLUTION  503 

imposed  a  religious  test  for  office,  which  was  confined  to 
"persons  professing  a  belief  in  the  faith  of  any  Protestant 
sect."1 

The  constitution  adopted  by  Pennsylvania  in  1776  declared  Penn- 
that  "  all  men  have  a  natural  and  inalienable  right  to  worship  sylvania- 
God,  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience  and 
understanding."  But  while  denying  all  civil  interference 
with  worship  and  all  public  taxation  for  religion,  the  consti- 
tution restricted  civil  rights  to  persons  "  who  acknowledge  the 
being  of  a  God."  In  addition  to  this,  the  oath  imposed  for 
all  office-holders  required  them  to  affirm,  "I  do  believe  in 
one  God,  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  Universe,  the 
rewarder  of  the  good  and  the  punisher  of  the  wicked ;  and  I 
do  acknowledge  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments to  be  given  by  divine  inspiration."2  Against  these 
restrictions  Franklin  fought  earnestly  in  the  convention,  but  Franklin, 
he  was  forced  to  content  himself  with  the  abandonment  of 
the  more  severe  test  against  Roman  doctrine.  Certainly,  in 
spite  of  the  spirit  of  its  great  founder,  Pennsylvania  had  not 
yet  learned  the  lesson  of  full  liberty  of  mind. 

And  Delaware  was  a  close  parallel.  Its  constitution  of  Delaware. 
1776  declared  that  "  all  persons  professing  the  Christian  reli- 
gion ought  forever  to  enjoy  equal  rights  and  privileges,"  and 
in  the  oath  of  office  put  a  declaration  of  faith  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  and  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
This  was  narrower  than  Pennsylvania. 

The  Maryland  convention  of  1775  took  the  first  step  Maryland, 
toward  freedom  in  the  extension  of  the  franchise  to  "all 
freemen  having  an  estate  of  <£40,  without  religious  distinc- 
tion." 3  But  this  absence  of  distinction  was  applicable  only 
to  differences  within  the  Christian  religion.  This  was  spe- 
cially defined  by  the  Bill  of  Rights  in  1777,4  which  specifies 
those  "persons  professing  the  Christian  religion  (as)  equally 

1  Baird,  Eeligion  in  America,  p.  268. 

2  Baird,  p.  270  ;  American  Historical  Association,  1887-1888,  p.  208. 
»  Bancroft,  VIII,  78.  4  Maryland  Laws. 


504  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

entitled  to  protection  in  their  religious  liberty."  The  bill 
forbids  compelling  any  persons  to  attend  or  support  any  par- 
ticular form  of  worship,  and  then  says,  "yet  the  legislature 
may  in  their  discretion  lay  a  general  tax  for  the  support  of 
the  Christian  religion,  leaving  to  each  individual  the  power  " 
of  indicating  the  direction  of  his  own  tax,  to  any  church  or 
to  the  poor.  By  a  happy  clause  the  bill  avoided  an  issue, 
which  afterward  plagued  Virginia,  decreeing  that  "  the  prop- 
erty now  held  by  the  Church  of  England"  should  remain 
theirs  forever;  and  consulted  charity  in  ordering  that  the 
clergy  of  that  Church  should  be  paid  until  the  following 
November. 

This  was  the  Maryland  act  of  disestablishment,  and  in  addi- 
tion to  the  removal  of  the  State-Church  it  made  also  distinct 
advance  in  enfranchising  Roman  Catholics,  for  whom  as  yet 
New  England,  outside  of  Rhode  Island,  had  made  no  room. 
The  constitution  copied  New  York  in  excluding  clergymen 
from  the  legislature,  and  for  office  imposed  an  oath  of  alle- 
giance and  of  belief  in  the  Christian  religion.  A  unique  inci- 
dent in  Maryland  was  the  appointment  of  a  form  of  public 
prayer  for  the  new  government.  The  majority  of  the  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  England  refused  to  use  the  form,  and  were 
required  to  pay  a  "  treble  tax  "  or  leave  the  country.  The 
most  of  them  chose  the  latter  alternative,  and  their  Churches 
were  closed  or  used  by  other  religious  bodies.1 

North  The  constitution  of  North  Carolina  used  a  negative  form  — 

Carolina.  jn  ^^  respect  peculiar  —  to  the  effect  that,  "  No  person  who 
shall  deny  the  being  of  God,  or  the  truth  of  the  Protestant 
religion,  or  the  divine  authority  of  either  the  Old  or  New 
Testament,  or  shall  hold  religious  opinions  incompatible  with 
the  freedom  or  safety  of  the  State,  shall  be  capable  of  holding 
any  office  or  place  of  trust  in  the  civil  government  of  this 
State."  Beyond  this  definition  of  religious  qualification  for 
office,  the  state  made  no  further  deliverance  on  the  subject  of 
religion,  save  the  guarantee  of  freedom  of  conscience.  The 

1  Hawks,  Ecclesiastical  Contributions ,  II,  283. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  505 

old  establishment  died  of  inanition,  and  no  provision  was 
made  to  support  any  Church  or  religious  teaching. 

The  constitutional  action  of  South  Carolina  was  a  most  South  / 
curious  mingling  of  political  and  religious  ideas,  having  in  Carolina- 
part  the  ordinary  expressions  of  civil  law,  and  in  other  part 
assuming  the  attitude  and  motive  of  a  superior  spiritual  court 
or  confession  of  faith.  The  constitution  of  1776  contained  no 
religious  provisions,  but  the  omission  was  more  than  supplied 
by  the  constitution  of  1778.1  Its  first  provision  having  refer- 
ence to  religion  was  one  excluding  from  the  office  of  gov- 
ernor, lieutenant  governor,  and  membership  in  the  privy 
council  or  legislature  all  clergymen,  "  until  two  years  after 
demitting  the  ministry." 

Chapter  XXXVIII.  enters  into  most  extensive  definitions, 
as  follows  :  "  All  persons  and  religious  societies,  who  acknowl- 
edge that  there  is  one  God,  and  a  future  state  of  reward  and 
punishment,  and  that  God  is  publicly  to  be  worshipped,  shall 
be  freely  tolerated.  The  Christian  Protestant  religion  shall  Christianity 
be  deemed,  and  is  hereby  constituted  and  declared  to  be  establlshed- 
the  established  religion  of  this  State.  All  denominations  of 
protestants  in  this  State  .  .  .  shall  enjoy  equal  religious  and 
civil  privileges."  The  chapter  ordains  the  security  of  owner- 
ship by  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  property  already  held 
by  them,  and  provides  for  incorporating  other  religious  bodies, 
"  whenever  fifteen  male  persons,  not  under  twenty-one  years 
of  age,"  shall  agree  together  for  religious  worship.  Each 
such  society  "  shall  have  agreed  to  and  subscribed  in  a  book 
the  following  five  articles,  without  which  no  agreement  or 
union  of  men,  upon  pretence  of  religion,  shall  entitle  them  to 
be  incorporated  and  esteemed  as  a  Church  of  the  established 
religion  of  this  State :  — 

"  1.   That  there  is  one  Eternal  God  and  a  future  state  of 

reward  and  punishment. 
"  2.    That  God  is  publicly  to  be  worshipped. 
1  South  Carolina  Statutes,  I,  142-145. 


506  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

"  3.   That  the  Christian  Religion  is  the  true  religion. 

"  4.  That  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  old  and  new  Testaments 
are  of  divine  inspiration,  and  are  the  rules  of  faith  and 
practice. 

"  5.  That  it  is  lawful  and  the  duty  of  every  man,  being  there- 
unto called  by  those  who  govern,  to  bear  witness  to 
the  truth." 

The  chapter  then  ordains  that  pastors  must  be  chosen  by 
the  majority  of  the  Church,  and  that  no  minister  can  enter 
upon  a  pastorate  until  he  has  subscribed  a  declaration,  "  that 
he  is  determined  by  God's  grace  out  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
to  instruct  the  people  committed  to  his  charge,  and  to  teach 
nothing  as  required  or  necessary  to  eternal  salvation,  but  that 
which  he  shall  be  persuaded  may  be  concluded  and  proved 
from  the  Scriptures ;  that  he  will  use  both  public  and  private 
admonitions,  as  well  to  the  sick  as  to  the  whole  within  his 
care,  as  need  shall  require  and  occasion  shall  be  given ;  and 
that  he  will  be  diligent  in  prayers  and  in  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  in  such  studies  as  help  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  same ;  that  he  will  be  diligent  to  frame  and  fashion  his 
own. self  and  his  family  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  to  make  both  himself  and  them,  as  much  as  in  him  lieth, 
wholesome  examples  and  patterns  to  the  flock  of  Christ ;  that 
he  will  maintain  and  set  forward,  as  much  as  he  can,  quiet- 
ness, peace  and  love  among  all  people,  and  especially  among 
those  that  are,  and  shall  be,  committed  to  his  charge." 

There  is  nothing  like  this  in  any  other  state  provision.  It 
strongly  resembles  the  provision  for  toleration  in  the  colonial 
law  of  Carolina,  but  carries  it  much  further,  while  its  concern 
for  pastoral  purity  and  faithfulness  is  far  more  in  the  spirit  of 
episcopal  jurisdiction  than  that  of  civil  legislation.  It  makes 
a  curious  revival  in  Carolina,  of  the  puritanic  forms  of  early 
Massachusetts.  At  the  same  time,  these  South  Carolina 
Puritans  of  the  Revolution  were  more  liberal  than  the  Massa- 
chusetts of  their  day.  This  establishment  of  the  Christian 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  507 

religion,  and  this  concern  for  pastoral  faithfulness,  must  be 
regarded  as  little  more  than  expressions  of  opinion  and  desire. 
Beyond  exclusion  from  office,  non-Christians  were  not  sub- 
jected to  imposition ;  no  penalties  were  carried  by  the  terms 
of  the  constitution,  while  that  instrument  expressly  ordained 
that:  "No  person  shall  by  law  be  obliged  to  pay  towards  (__ 
maintenance  and  support  of  a  religious  worship,  that  he  does 
not  freely  join  in,  or  has  not  voluntarily  engaged  to  support." 

In  Georgia  the  constitution  of  1777  briefly  declared  freedom  Georgia. 
of  conscience,  but  required  that  "  all  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture shall  be  of  the  Protestant  religion."1 

It  will  thus  be  observed  that,  when  the  American  Union 
was  formed,  there  was  great  variety  of  legal  expression  on 
the  subject  of  religion  and  its  civic  relations  in  the  different 
states.  By  brief  grouping  of  them  it  appears,  that  in  only 
two  out  of  the  thirteen  was  full  and  perfect  freedom  conceded 
by  law.  These  were  Rhode  Island  and  Virginia.  Six  of  the 
states,  viz.,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  the 
two  Carolinas,  and  Georgia  insisted  on  Protestantism.  Two 
were  content  with  the  Christian  religion;  Delaware  and 
Maryland.  Four,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  the  Carolinas, 
required  assent  to  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  Two, 
Pennsylvania  and  South  Carolina,  demanded  a  belief  in 
heaven  and  hell.  Three,  New  York,  Maryland,  and  South 
Carolina,  excluded  ministers  from  civil  office.  Two,  Pennsyl- 
vania and  South  Carolina,  emphasized  belief  in  one  eternal 
God.  One,  Delaware,  required  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  And  five,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connec- 
ticut, Maryland,  and  South  Carolina,  adhered  to  a  religious 
establishment.  In  one,  South  Carolina,  the  obnoxious  term 
toleration  found  a  constitutional  place. 

But  with  this  great  variety  of  legal  expression  the  unanim-  Constitution 

ity  of  sentiment  for  full  liberty  was  soon  made  manifest  in 

the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution.     That  instrument, 

submitted  to  the  states  by  the  convention  of  1787,  contained 

i  Baird,  Religion  in  America,  p.  272. 


508  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

the  following  sole  utterance  on  the  subject  of  religion :  "  VI. 

No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification 
to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States." 

When  the  constitution  came  before  the  state  conventions, 
this  section  gave  rise  to  much  debate.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was 
not  regarded  as  furnishing  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  religious 
freedom  ;  and  on  the  other,  it  was  feared  as  giving  entrance 
to  a  liberty  which  might  endanger  the  commonwealth.  New 
York,  New  Hampshire,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina  insisted 
on  a  larger  statement  for  religious  liberty.  The  minority  in 
the  Pennsylvania  convention  wished  to  reject  the  constitu- 
tion until  such  larger  guarantee  was  incorporated.  A  simi- 
lar demand  was  made  in  Virginia  by  Patrick  Henry.  But 
Madison  prevailed  on  the  convention  to  adopt  the  constitu- 
tion on  his  personal  pledge  to  obtain  the  amendment  after- 
ward made,  carrying  his  point  by  a  majority  of  eight  in  a 
vote  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight. 

In  Massachusetts  alone  was  a  dread  of  liberty  expressed. 
Major  Lusk  "shuddered  at  the  idea  that  Roman  Catholics, 
Papists,  and  Pagans  might  be  introduced  into  office  and  that 
Popery  and  the  Inquisition  may  be  established  in  America." 
"Who,"  answered  the  Rev.  Mr.  Shute,  "shall  be  excluded 
from  natural  trusts  ?  Whatever  answer  bigotry  may  suggest, 
the  dictates  of  candor  and  equity,  I  conceive,  will  be,  None. 
Far  from  limiting  my  charity  and  confidence  to  men  of  my 
own  denomination  in  religion,  I  believe  there  are  worthy 
characters  among  men  of  every  denomination  —  among 
Quakers,  Baptists,  the  Church  of  England,  the  Papists,  and 
even  among  those  who  have  no  other  guide  in  the  way  to 
virtue  and  heaven,  than  the  dictates  of  natural  religion."1 
The  spirit  of  Puritanism  must  have  travelled  a  long  way  to 
permit  such  an  utterance  by  the  lips  of  one  of  its  established 
clergy. 

The  first  Congress  of  the  United  States  found  among  its 

1  Elliott,  Debates,  II,  119-148;  American  Historical  Association,  1886-1887, 
pp.  27,  120,  405,  414. 


THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  509 

duties  the  consideration  of  various  amendments  demanded  by 
different  state  conventions.     Madison  maintained  that  those 
who  had  opposed  the  constitution,  disliked  it  only  because  it 
failed  in  effectual  provisions  against  encroachments  on  par- 
ticular rights.     Among  these  were  the  rights  of  conscience. 
Of    the    ten   amendments   proposed   by   the   congress,  sent 
down  to  the  states,  by  them  adopted,  and  so  made  part  of  the 
national  constitution,  the  first  is  in  these  words :  "  Congress  First 
shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  Amendment- 
prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof." 

This  amendment  and  the  section  already  quoted  are  the  /  I  / 
only  utterances  of  the  federal  constitution  on  the  subject  of 
religion.  Their  brevity  is  in  marked  contrast  with  the  diffuse 
and  elaborate  verbiage  of  many  of  the  state  constitutions. 
But  they  cover  the  entire  ground,  and  pronounce  the  national 
government  for  the  largest  liberty  of  conscience  and  worship, 
and  restrain  the  national  magistracy  from  all  interference  in 
"matters  of  religious  concernment." 

Thus  from  the  beginning  of  national  life,  the  United 
States  ordained  throughout  the  land,  so  far  as  its  constitu- 
tional power  could  reach,  full  liberty  of  mind,  conscience,  and 
worship. 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS 

THE  circumstances  and  constituents  of  the  national  govern- 
ment necessitated  limitations  of  its  law  of  liberty.  Its  provi- 
sions applied  only  in  the  federal  sphere  and  had  no  force  of 
law  against  a  religious  establishment  in  any  of  the  states. 
The  constitution  conferred  on  the  general  government  the 
right  and  duty  to  maintain  in  every  state  a  republican  form 
of  government,  but  it  bestowed  no  right  of  interference  with 
the  institutions  of  a  religious  character  which  any  state  might 
choose  to  establish,  so  long  as  the  moral  safety  and  the  integ- 
rity of  the  nation  were  not  involved.  If,  for  example,  one  of 
the  states  should  set  aside  its  present  form  of  government 
and  set  up  a  monarchy,  the  national  government  under  the 
constitution  would  be  required  to  prevent  such  action.  But 
if  one  of  the  states,  even  to-day,  should  change  its  own  con- 
stitution and  set  up  a  State-Church,  with  the  peculiar  per- 
quisites and  power  of  an  establishment,  and  should  put  such 
Church  upon  the  public  treasury  for  support,  the  general  gov- 
ernment has  no  power  to  prevent  it. 

For  this  reason,  the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution  did 
not  abolish  the  various  restrictions  and  establishments  which 
obtained  in  different  states.  Each  state  was  free  to  do  as  it 
willed  in  regard  to  Church,  individual  liberty  of  worship, 
establishment,  religious  taxation,  and  religious  tests.  They 
carried  over  into  their  future  statehood  the  special  institutions 
obtaining  in  1789,  and  used  their  own  time  and  method  of 
making  what  changes  they  desired.  .  For  this  cause,  though 
full  freedom  was  the  law  of  the  nation,  yet  in  some  parts  of 
the  union  illiberal  and  oppressive  restrictions  obtained  for 

610 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  511 

many  years,  attended  by  more  or  less  of  struggle,  until  the 
last  vestige  of  old  distinctions  was  swept  away :  if,  indeed,  it 
can  be  said  that  they  are  all  gone,  even  yet.1  Some  of  those 
struggles  should  here  be  noted. 

In  Virginia,  notwithstanding  the  broad  terms  of  the  "Bill 
of  Rights  "  and  the  "Act  for  Religious  Freedom,"  there  were 
two  sources  of  trouble.  The  first  was  an  apparent  inability 
of  lawmakers  to  altogether  emancipate  themselves  from  past 
customs.  Bills  were  passed  for  incorporating  the  Episcopal 
Church  as  a  denomination,  which  was  considered  by  some  of 
the  people  as  an  indication  of  state  preference.  Occasional 
legislation  referring  to  "  dissenters  "  and  vestries  caused  the 
same  comment.  To  end  the  debate  thence  arising  the  legis- 
lature of  1798-1799  passed  an  act  for  the  repeal  of  every  law 
in  seeming  contravention  of  the  bill  of  rights,  the  constitution, 
and  the  act  for  establishing  religious  freedom,  on  the  ground 
that  "  the  several  acts  presently  recited  do  admit  the  Church 
established  under  the  regal  government  to  have  continued  so 
subsequently  to  the  constitution.  "  2  This  gave  the  establish- 
ment the  final  coup  de  grace,  and  was  in  keeping  with  a  deci- 
sion of  the  Virginia  Court  of  Appeals  (Kemper  vs.  Hawkins, 
1793)  that  the  bill  of  rights  was  a  part  of  the  constitution, 
and  that  all  laws  contrary  to  it  were  null  and  void. 

The  other  source  of  trouble  in  Church  affairs  was  the  glebe 
land.  The  glebes  had  been  given  to  the  Church  of  England  Glebe  lands, 
established  in  Virginia.  After  disestablishment  the  Episcopal 
Church,  rightly  considering  itself  as  the  successor  and  heir 
of  the  Church  of  England,  laid  claim  to  the  lands.  Had  the 
Virginia  convention  of  1776  been  as  wise  in  this  matter  as 
the  men  of  Maryland  and  South  Carolina,  the  justice  of  the 
claim  would  have  been  acknowledged  in  law.  But  that  body 
said  nothing  on  the  subject,  leaving  the  question  open  for  the 
contentions  of  cupidity  and  sectarian  jealousy.  In  the  absence 
of  any  legal  definition  of  ownership,  the  claim  of  the  Episco- 

1  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  III,  149. 

2  Shepherd,  Statutes  at  Large,  II,  149. 


512  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

pal  Church  was  not  quietly  acquiesced  in.  Every  year 
brought  to  the  legislature  memorials  from  rival  Churches, 
contending  that  possession  of  the  glebes  by  the  Episcopal 
Church  constituted  a  legal  advantage  of  one  denomination 
over  others.  Finally  the  legislature  of  1802  passed  an  act  to 
x  sell  those  glebe  lands  which  were  vacant,  but  not  to  disturb 
any  incumbents.  The  proceeds  of  the  sale  were  to  be  applied 
to  the  payment  of  parish  debts,  and  the  remainder  to  be  dis- 
tributed to  the  poor.  This  act  was  contested  by  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  chancellor's  court,  and  there  sustained.  In 
the  court  of  appeals  the  bench  was  equally  divided,  and  the 
chancellor's  decision  stood.  The  law  came  up  again  in  the 
court  of  appeals  in  1840,  when  the  act  was  unanimously  sus- 
tained by  the  five  judges.  "  Not  until  then,"  says  Howison, 
"was  the  divorce  between  Church  and  State  in  Virginia 
complete."1 

The  established  Church  of  Connecticut2  existed  for  a  full 
quarter  century  after  the  national  constitution  was  adopted, 
and  its  continuance  and  claims  entered  largely  into  political 
differences  and  struggles.  In  both  this  state  and  Massachu- 
setts the  Federalists  espoused  the  cause  of  the  establishment, 
which  thus  became  a  special  object  of  hatred  by  the  Repub- 
licans. The  conservatives  were  tenacious  of  the  privileges  of 
the  State-Church  and  unwilling  to  extend  the  liberties  of 
dissenters.  In  1791  Connecticut  even  narrowed  those  liber- 
ties by  the  requirement  that  the  dissenters  must  file  certificates 
of  dissent  and  membership  in  a  dissenting  Church,  in  order 
to  be  exempt  from  the  state  tithe.  During  the  next  twenty 
years  the  feeling  in  the  opposing  parties  became  exceedingly 
bitter.  The  Federalists  confounded  liberty  with  Jefferson- 
-  ism,  and  Jeff ersonism  with  infidelity  and  all  the  horrors  of  the 
French  Revolution,  which  would  be  repeated  in  Connecticut, 
if  the  Church  were  overthrown.  But  the  tide  was  too  strong 

1  Howison,  History  of  Virginia,  II,  396-405. 

2  New  Haven  Historical  Papers,  III,  401-402  ;  Schouler,  History  of  United 
States,  III,  52-53  ;  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X,  99. 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  513 

for  them,  and,  in  order  to  save  themselves,  they  passed  an  act 
in  1816  to  repeal  the  penalty  for  non-attendance  upon  Church, 
a  very  small  concession  to  the  party  which  had  vowed  death 
to  the  establishment.  In  1817  the  conservatives  fell  from 
power.  Oliver  Wolcott  was  chosen  governor  by  a  coalition 
of  all  opponents  to  the  State-Church.1  All  the  dissenting 
Churches  made  common  cause  with  the  Republicans  against 
the  conservative  dynasty.  The  legislature  of  that  year  passed 
an  act  that  any  person  of  any  Christian  denomination  should 
have  full  power  to  change  his  Church  relations  at  will,  and 
that  every  Christian  society  should  have  power  to  tax  its  own 
members  only. 

The  legislature  also  called  a  convention  to  frame  a  consti-  Connecticut 
tution.  This  body  met  in  1818,  framed  a  constitution  to  take 
the  place  of  the  old  colonial  charter,  and  set  in  that  funda- 
mental law  provisions  which  destroyed  all  religious  estab- 
lishment.  It  ordained  "  that  the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of 
religious  profession  and  worship,  without  distinction,  shall  be 
forever  free  to  ail  persons  in  this  state.  No  preference  shall 
be  given  by  any  law  to  any  Christian  sect  or  mode  of  wor- 
ship." No  person  should  be  compelled  to  join  or  support  any 
Church,  society,  or  religious  association.  Each  and  all  should 
enjoy  equal  rights,  powers,  and  privileges.  These  provisions 
were  intended  to  establish  full  liberty,  but  as  the  clause 
touching  preference  mentioned  the  Christian  religion  and 
might  give  rise  to  the  construction  that  the  freedom  intended 
was  designed  only  for  Christian  Churches,  an  after  legislature 
expressly  construed  the  benefits  of  this  freedom  as  including 

Jews. 

The  change  seemed  to  many  of  the  conservatives  as  the 
beginning  of  the  day  of  doom.  The  venerable  Timothy 
D  wight,  the  president  of  Yale,  deprecated  it  until  his 
death.  It  involved  much  readjustment  of  affairs,  attended 
by  more  or  less  of  trouble,  but  in  a  few  years  the  wisdom 
and  righteousness  of  the  new  system  justified  themselves 
i  Johnston,  History  of  Connecticut,  p.  352. 

2L 


514 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Massachu- 
setts. 


Unitarian- 
ism. 


to  even  those  who  had  been  stanchest  in  defence  of  the 
establishment. 

The  struggle  in  Massachusetts  was  more  protracted.  There 
was  the  same  political  adoption  of  the  Church  question  as  in 
Connecticut,  perhaps  with  a  shade  less  of  bitterness,  while 
to  this  was  added  another  element  which  threatened  the  very 
existence  of  the  old  Puritan  Church.  aThe  strife  began 
promptly  on  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1780,  which 
some  of  the  dissenters  construed  as  exempting  them  from 
filing  certificates  of  dissent  and  from  payment  of  tithes.  To 
test  the  claim  a  Mr.  Balkom  of  Attleboro,  in  1781,  refused  to 
pay  and,  the  tax  having  been  collected  by  levy,  brought  suit 
for  its  recovery.  The  case  went  against  him  in  the  justice's 
court,  but  on  appeal  to  the  county  court  the  sentence  was  re- 
versed. This  should  have  settled  the  question  for  the  State, 
but  it  did  not,  and  the  old  custom  still  generally  obtained. 

Some  years  afterward,  a  Mr.  Murray,  a  Universalist  minis- 
ter, brought  suit  for  recovery  of  tithes  paid  by  his  parish- 
ioners. In  defence  the  State's  attorney  argued  that  "a 
minister,  who  denied  the  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked, 
was  not  a  teacher  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality,"  within 
the  meaning  of  the  constitution !  But  the  court  gave  deci- 
sion for  Murray,  and  in  1799  the  legislature  passed  an  act 
allowing  such  suits  for  recovery,  from  which  act  a  later  deci- 
sion of  the  supreme  court  took  much  of  its  life  by  deciding 
that  ministers  of  unincorporated  societies  were  not  public 
teachers,  and  therefore  could  not  claim  the  privileges  of  the 
law. 

Meanwhile  the  Unitarian  defection  was  gathering  force 
and  under  the  law  had  an  immense  advantage,  so  soon  as  it 
could  persuade  a  majority  of  citizens  to  its  views.  The  law 
made  the  Church  a  town  institution,  and  gave  the  choice  of 
minister  to  the  town  meeting.  It  was  thus  easily  possible 
for  the  town  meeting  to  override  the  orthodox  portion  of  the 
community.  This  danger  made  itself  evident  in  the  great 

1  Schouler,  II,  252 ;  III,  222  ;  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X,  99-104. 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  515 

Dedham  case,  the  issue  of  which  was  so  momentous  for  the 
Church  of  Massachusetts. 

The  majority  of  the  Dedham  Church  were  orthodox,  while 
the  majority  of  the  town  were  of  Unitarian  proclivities.  In 
1818  the  minister  of  the  Church  resigned,  and  the  town  chose 
a  Unitarian  as  his  successor.  The  Church  refused  to  assent 
to  this  choice,  and  the  case  was  carried  to  the  supreme  court, 
which  decided  that  the  constitution  "  gives  to  towns,  not  to 
Churches,  the  right  to  elect  the  minister  in  the  last  resort." 
This  decision  gave  the  Church  perquisites  and  property  to 
the  Unitarians,  and  the  Orthodox  were  forced  to  make  a 
new  Church  for  themselves  on  the  voluntary  system.  A  like 
result  followed  in  very  many  places,  and  the  old  Puritan 
Church  found  itself  turned  out  of  house  and  home  by  the 
very  powers  it  had  contrived  to  give  it  lasting  security.  This 
was  the  death-blow  to  the  long-moribund  theocracy.  The 
constitutional  convention  of  1820,  following  the  erection  of 
the  State  of  Maine,  attempted  to  meet  the  religious  question, 
but  through  the  opposition  of  the  conservative  element  sue-  'l/ 
ceeded  only  in  the  abolition  of  religious  tests  for  office.  In 
1833  the  Church  was  finally  disestablished.  Tithes  were  Disestab- 
abolished,  the  voluntary  system  made  universal  in  the  state,  llshment- 
and  the  towns  discharged  from  all  concern  and  power  for 
Church  affairs. 

After  the  national  settlement  the  attitude  of  Pennsylvania  Penn- 
toward  religious  liberty  was  marked  by  both  enlargement  sylvania< 
and  restriction.1     The   constitution   of   1790   abolished  the 
religious  test  for  office.     This  was  a  great  advance.     But  a 
backward  step   was   taken,  when   to   "acknowledgment  of 
Almighty  God"  there  was  added  the  belief  in  "a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments,"  as  a  prerequisite  to  the 
freedom  of  religion  conceded  by  the  state.    This  was  repeated 
in  the  constitution  of  1837,  and  remains  in  the  fundamental 
law  to-day. 

1  Pennsylvania  Laws  ;  American  Historical  Association,  1887-1888,  p.  462 ; 
Sergeant  and  Rawles,  XI,  394. 


516  RISE  Or  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

The  state  has  never  repealed  the  law  of  1700,  which 
imposed  a  penalty  upon  any  who  should  "wilfully,  pre- 
meditatedly,  and  despitefully  blaspheme,  or  speak  lightly 
or  profanely  of  Almighty  God,  Christ  Jesus,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  the  Scriptures  of  Truth."  The  decision  of  the 
supreme  court,  in  1824,  in  the  celebrated  case  of  Upde- 
grapJi  vs.  the  Commonwealth  —  a  case  arising  from  words 
spoken  in  public  debate  —  declared  that  the  law  was  still 
in  force. 

New  Hamp-       Before  the  eighteenth  century  ended  New  Hampshire  abol- 
shire*  ished  the  religious  qualification  for  the  office  of  governor, 

but  it  continued  to  "  authorize  the  towns  to  provide  for  the 
support  of  Protestant  teachers."  This  archaic  authoriza- 
tion has  long  been  idle  and  absurd.  No  town,  as  such, 
has  acted  upon  it  within  this  century,  but  it  still  remains  in 
the  bill  of  rights,  one  of  the  few  surviving  relics  in  the 
United  States  of  the  idea  of  a  state  establishment  of  religion. 
The  same  section  (6)  of  the  bill  of  rights  contains  the  words : 
"Every  denomination  of  Protestant  Christians,  demeaning 
themselves  quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall 
be  equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law."  Thus  the  con- 
stitution distinguished  against  the  Roman  Catholic,  and,  on 
strict  construction,  put  a  Jewish  congregation  outside  of  the 
protection  of  the  law.  Repeated  efforts  have  been  made  to 
strike  out  the  words  Protestant  and  Christian,  but  unsuccess- 
fully. They  still  remain  in  the  revised  constitution  of  1889. 
The  proposed  change  seemed  to  many  as  though  its  adoption 
would  be  a  "repeal  of  the  Protestant  Christian  religion," 
and  make  the  state  unchristian !  So  the  illiberal  technical- 
ity remains  to  misrepresent  the  true  spirit  of  the  state,  which 
in  the  use  of  such  restriction  is  alone  in  the  union.  1  New 
Hampshire,  indeed,  was  slow  in  recognizing  the  rights  of 
dissenters.  Separate  acts  of  legislation  in  1792,  1804,  1805, 
and  1817  gave  exemptions  to  Episcopalians,  Baptists,  Uni- 
versalists,  and  Methodists,  providing  that  each  should  be 

1  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  X,  90. 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  517 

"considered  as  a  distinct  denomination,  with  privileges  as 
such."  Finally,  a  "toleration  act"  was  passed  in  1819, 
which  gave  freedom  to  all  Christian  sects. 

Delaware1  soon  abandoned  its  demand  for  belief  in  the  Delaware. 
Trinity,  and  by  its  constitution  of  1831  abolished  religious 
tests.     The  South  Carolina  constitution  of  1790  put  aside  its  South 
elaborate  provisions  as  to  Churches,  ministers,  and  a  Prot-  Carolina- 
estant  establishment.     By  this  action  it  enfranchised  Roman 
Catholics,  and  in  set  terms  provided  for  religious  freedom, 
"  without  distinction  or  preference."     But  it  still  maintained 
the  exclusion  of  clergymen  from  public  office.2 

The  first  state  to  be  admitted  to  the  Union,  after  the 
original  thirteen,  was  Vermont,  the  settlers  of  which  had  Vermont, 
shared  the  prevailing  sentiments  of  New  England.  Because 
of  this  the  state  life  began  with  civil  prescriptions  for  reli- 
gion. The  law  of  1783  had  already  put  the  Church  on  the 
town  care  and  tax,  with  some  relief  for  dissenters.  A  law 
of  1801  ordained  that  every  person  of  adult  age  and  a  legal 
voter  should  be  considered  as  of  the  religious  opinion  repre- 
sented in  the  town  Church,  and  as  such  should  be  liable  to 
taxation  for  the  Church  support,  unless  he  should  deliver  in 
writing  a  declaration  that  he  did  not  agree  in  religious  opinion 
with  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  town.  This  caused 
much  opposition,  and  in  1807  the  system  was  abandoned,  the 
care  of  the  Church  taken  from  the  town,  tithes  abolished, 
and  religion  and  worship  made  entirely  voluntary. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  our  study  into  the  details 
of  later  changes  in  state  constitutions,  or  to  reproduce  the 
religious  sections  adopted  by  the  many  commonwealths 
which  now  make  up  the  American  Union.  The  states  added 
to  the  union  of  the  original  thirteen  largely  copied  the 
models  set  before  them  in  these  earlier  constitutions,  espe- 
cially following  in  preamble  and  bill  of  rights  the  exact 

1  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  III,  149. 

2  South  Carolina  Statutes,  I,  188-191. 


518  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

verbiage  of  the  older  instruments.  A  comparison  of  their 
provisions  on  certain  lines  will  fully  meet  the  need  of  the 
question  here. 

state  consti-  As  one  illustration  of  similarity  it  may  be  noted  that 
compared,  thirty-one  constitutions  use  in  their  preambles  the  phrase 
"  grateful  to  Almighty  God."  Three  of  them,  Virginia, 
Louisiana,  and  Texas,  substitute  for  this  the  words  "invok- 
ing the  favor  and  guidance  —  or  the  blessing  —  of  Almighty 
God."  All  the  constitutions  have  the  name  of  God  in  some 
place,  either  the  preamble  or  the  section  on  religious  worship, 
with  the  exception  of  Michigan  and  West  Virginia.  The 
constitutions  of  these  two  states  have  neither  preamble,  nor 
mention  of  God  anywhere  in  the  instrument,  but  the  freedom 
of  conscience  and  worship  is  emphatically  decreed.  No  con- 
stitution contains  the  name  of  Christ.  It  will  be  noted  that 
neither  God  nor  Christ  is  named  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

1  In  regard  to  the  expression  of  liberty  all  the  states  are  at 
one  in  decreeing  its  full  exercise,  but  there  are  interesting 
differences  and  similarities  of  statement.  Twenty-six  states 
declare  that  it  is  the  privilege  of  "  every  man  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience."  Eleven 
say  that  "the  free  enjoyment  of  religious  sentiments  and 
forms  of  worship  shall  ever  be  held  sacred."  Five  assert 
a  "  duty  of  the  legislature  to  pass  laws  for  the  protection  "  of 
religious  freedom.  Nineteen  declare  that  "  no  human  author- 
ity ought  to  control,  or  interfere  with,  the  rights  of  con- 
science." Nine  ordain  that  "  no  person  may  be  molested  in 
person  or  estate  on  account  of  religion." 

In  qualification  of  this  liberty,  thirteen  states  define  that  it 
is  "not  to  excuse  licentiousness  or  justify  practices  incon- 
sistent with  the  peace  and  safety  "  of  society ;  seven  say  that 
it  is  "  not  to  excuse  disturbance  of  the  public  peace  "  ;  three, 
that  it  is  "not  to  justify  practices  inconsistent  with  the 

1  All  the  following  comparisons  are  taken  from  Stimson's  American 
Statute  Law. 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  519 

rights  of  others  " ;  and  three  require  that  "  no  person  may 
disturb  others  in  worship." 

With  respect  to  the  relation  of  individuals  to  the  Church 
and  of  the  Church  to  the  civil  law,  twenty-four  states  forbid 
compulsory  attendance  or  support  of  any  Church ;  one  (New 
Hampshire)  says  that  "  no  person  of  one  sect  may  be  com- 
pelled to  support  a  minister  of  another ; "  and  one  (New 
Jersey)  forbids  compulsion  of  any  person  to  attend  worship 
"contrary  to  his  own  faith."  Five  states  forbid  "an  estab- 
lished Church  " ;  twenty-nine  forbid  the  civil  government  to 
show  any  "  preference  "  for  any  one  sect,  and  three,  any  "  sub- 
ordination" of  one  sect  to  another.  Two  states,  Delaware  and 
Vermont,  have  it  in  their  constitutions  that  "every  sect 
ought  to  observe  the  Lord's  day  and  keep  up  some  sort  of 
religious  worship." 

In  the  matter  of  support  fourteen  states  forbid  the  appro- 
priation of  money  from  the  state  treasury  for  the  support  of 
sectarian  institutions.  Seven  include  municipal  treasuries 
in  the  prohibition.  Six  apply  the  prohibition  to  any  property 
of  the  state ;  and  four,  to  any  property  of  any  municipality. 
Two  states,  Michigan  and  Oregon,  carry  this  principle  so  far 
as  to  forbid  the  appropriation  of  public  money  to  pay  for  the 
services  of  chaplains  to  the  legislature. 

In  one  thing  a  sharp  contrast  is  notable.  New  Hampshire 
says  that  the  legislature  may  authorize  towns  and  parishes  to 
provide  for  the  support  of  religious  teachers ;  Massachusetts 
and  Missouri  confine  this  authorization  to  parishes;  the 
Maine  constitution  gives  this  power  to  "  religious  societies," 
without  the  intervention  of  the  legislature;  while  Virginia 
and  West  Virginia  forbid  the  legislature  to  take  any  such 
action.  Religious  tests  are  generally  forbidden.  Twenty- 
seven  states  declare  that  no  religious  test  shall  be  required 
for  office ;  eighteen  add  to  this  "  for  any  public  trust."  Four 
states  include  voting  as  exempt  from  tests.  Six  forbid  re- 
ligious test  for  jury  duty,  and  seventeen  for  witnesses,  while 
two  (Oregon  and  Wyoming)  forbid  the  questioning  of  a  wit- 


520        t  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

ness  in  court  as  to  his  religious  belief.  Eleven  states  declare 
that  no  man  can  "  be  deprived  of  any  civil  right  on  account 
of  religious  sentiments." 

Exceptions.  Finally,  there  are  to  be  observed  a  few  exceptions  and 
limitations.  In  five  states,  Arkansas,  Mississippi,  Texas,  and 
the  two  Carolinas,  no  person  can  hold  office  "  who  denies  the 
being  of  Almighty  God  or  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being." 
Arkansas  also  makes  such  a  denier  of  God  incompetent  as  a 
witness.  Pennsylvania  and  Tennessee  restrict  oifice  to  such 
as  "  believe  in  God  and  a  future  state  of  reward  and  punish- 
ment." Maryland  requires  this  belief  in  a  juror  or  witness, 
but  for  the  office-holder  demands  only  a  belief  in  God.  Of 
these  eight  states  thus  requiring  some  religious  qualification, 
Mississippi  and  Tennessee,  by  a  curious  inconsistency,  forbid 
all  religious  tests  as  qualifications  for  office. 

Maryland  is  the  only  state  in  the  union  which  still  requires 
the  sanction  of  the  Church,  or  a  religious  service,  to  create 
the  status  of  marriage. 

The  points  on  which  all  the  state  constitutions  are  at  one 
are  as  follows :  — 

1.  No  legislature  can  pass  a  law  establishing  religion,  or  a 

Church.  To  effect  such  purpose  a  change  in  the 
constitution  would  be  required. 

2.  No  person  can  be  compelled  by  law  to  attend  any  form  of 

religious  service ;  or,  — 

3.  To  contribute   to   the  support  of  any  such  service   or 

Church. 

4.  No  restraint  can  be  put  by  law  on   the  free  exercise  of 

religion;  or, — 

5.  On  the   free   expression   and  promulgation   of  religious 

belief.  Provided  always,  that  this  freedom  "  shall  not 
be  so  construed  as  to  excuse  acts  of  licentiousness, 
or  to  justify  practices  inconsistent  with  the  peace 
and  safety  of  the  State." 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  521 

Such  was  the  progress,  and  such  are  the  results  of  nearly 
three  hundred  years  of  endeavor.  So  far  as  affected  indi- 
vidual liberty,  most  of  the  colonies  had  either  conceded  full 
freedom  of  religion  or  allowed  its  enjoyment  without  legal 
enactment,  long  before  the  Revolution,  though  several  of 
them  maintained  some  of  the  features  of  a  State-Church. 
The  political  upheaval  of  1776  brought  the  overthrow  of  the 
colonial  establishments,  save  as  the  Church  rates  still  con- 
tinued for  thirty,  forty,  and  fifty  years  in  New  Hampshire, 
Connecticut,  and  Massachusetts.  With  the  abolition  of 
these,  in  the  last  century,  but  few  vestiges  were  left  in 
America  of  that  old  idea  of  union  between  Church  and  State, 
which  had  ruled  Christendom  from  the  time  of  Constantine, 
and  is  yet  regnant  in  almost  every  country  of  Europe. 

Thus  it  is  the  peculiar  merit  and  glory  of  this  American 
people  that  they  were  the  first,  and  as  yet  the  only  one, 
among  the  nations  to  embody  the  principle  of  Religious  Lib- 
erty in  the  fundamental  law.  Not  toleration,  but  equality,  i  ,  . 
puts  all  religions  in  the  same  relation  to  the  law,  under  /  i  / 
which  there  can  be  no  preferences  of  one  before  another. 
The  only  relation  between  the  Church  and  state  is  that  of 
mutual  respect.  Over  the  Church  the  state  does  "not  pro- 
fess to  have  any  jurisdiction  whatever,  except  so  far  as  is 
necessary  to  protect  the  civil  rights  of  others,  and  to  preserve 
the  public  peace.  .  .  .  Equity  will  not  determine  questions 
of  faith,  doctrine,  or  schism,  unless  necessarily  involved  in 
the  enforcement  of  ascertained  trusts." 1  Over  the  state,  the 
Church  affects  no  authority  to  exercise  dictation.  Its  influ- 
ence is  solely  moral;  free  to  express  opinion  in  regard  to 
any  matters  of  civic  interest  and  to  apply  thereto  the  princi- 
ples of  God's  word,  it  is  yet  destitute  of  all  constraining 
power,  save  such  as  arises  from  the  persuasion  of  the  individ- 
ual mind  and  the  creation  of  that  public  opinion,  which  in 
America  is  the  court  of  last  resort. 

The  few  limitations  that  yet  remain  in  some  of  the  state 

1  Cooley,  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  572. 


522 


RISE   OE  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


Objections. 


constitutions  —  such  as  the  requirement  of  belief  in  God, 
and  the  retention  of  the  word  "  Protestant "  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  New  Hampshire  —  are  practically  devoid  of  force, 
lifeless  as  the  fossils  in  the  rock,  monuments  simply  of  a 
system  which  has  passed.  The  rejection  of  a  witness  solely 
on  account  of  his  belief  in  religious  matters  would  be  no- 
where in  the  land  possible  to-day.  Nor  could  a  governor  of 
Pennsylvania  be  unseated,  if  he  should  fall  into  unbelief 
in  God  and  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishment.  Nor 
yet  could  a  Hebrew  congregation  fail  of  "  protection  under 
the  law"  in  New  Hampshire,  though  the  constitution  does 
not  concede  it.  Practically,  religious  liberty  is  complete, 
involving,  to  the  individual,  no  curtailment  of  civil  right  or 
privilege;  to  the  Church,  no  interference  with  its  faith, 
order,  or  spiritual  function ;  and  to  the  various  Churches,  no 
discrimination  or  preference  by  law  of  one  before  another. 

This  American  religious  liberty  has  been  assailed  from  two 
standpoints.  One  opponent  objects  that  it  is  not  complete, 
the  other  that  it  is  unchristian.  A  few  brief  remarks  on  both 
these  objections  may  fitly  close  this  treatise. 

incomplete.  The  former  objection  of  incompleteness  finds  its  reasons  in 
such  things  as,  the  exemption  of  Church  property  from  taxa- 
tion ;  laws  for  the  protection  of  the  sabbath  and  against 
blasphemy ;  proclamation  for  days  of  thanksgiving  and  fast ; 
and  anti-Mormon  legislation.  Any  lengthened  discussion  of 
these  reasons  is  here  impossible,  and  it  is  alone  needful  to 
note  that  the  justification  of  all  such  legislative  action  re- 
sides, not  in  the  demands  of  religion  nor  in  the  competition 
of  one  form  of  religion  with  another,  but  solely  in  the  de- 
mands of  social  order,  safety,  and  prosperity. 

If  there  be  any  truths  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  history 
of  nations,  among  them  is  the  fact  that  irreligion  is  the  sure 
precursor  of  social  decay  and  ruin.  A  godless  community  is 
doomed.  A  town  without  a  Church  is  the  chosen  home  of 
vice  and  crime.  A  society  that  recognizes  no  divine  rela- 
tion is  rotten  to  the  core.  Hence,  the  law  recognizes  the 


FINAL   SETTLEMENTS  523 

existence  and  influence  of  the  Church  as  a  social  institution, 
necessary  to  the  safety  of  society  itself,  and  for  the  same 
reason  that  it  lays  no  taxes  on  its  schools  and  charitable 
foundations,  it  exempts  the  Churches  from  taxation.  It  is  true 
that  in  some  instances  this  principle  has  been  abused,  and 
that  it  would  be  well  to  make  general  the  limitation,  obtain- 
ing in  some  states,  which  exempts  only  such  Church  property 
as  is  in  actual  use  for  religious  service,  and  not  a  source  of 
income. 

But  the  principle  is  just,  and  the  argument  that  this  exemp- 
tion adds  to  the  taxes  of  those  who  have  no  relation  to  the 
Church,  and  is  thus  an  invasion  of  their  religious  liberty,  is 
in  reality  futile.  It  would  be  true,  were  the  exemption  made 
for  the  Church's  sake.  It  loses  all  force  when  the  exemption 
is  made  for  the  good  of  society.  In  this  view  the  objector 
has  no  more  reason  for  opposition  than  a  childless  man  would 
have  against  the  school  tax,  or  a  man  would  have  against  a 
tax  for  building  a  bridge,  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  want 
to  cross  the  stream  or  could  row  himself  over. 

In  like  manner  the  experience  of  mankind  has  demonstrated  .  ^ 
that  the  institutions  of  morality  are  essential  to  the  preser- 
vation of  social  safety,  and  that  no  requirement  of  liberty 
demands  that  the  lust  and  licentiousness  of  men  shall  be  given 
free  rein.  Men  are  not  to  be  allowed  "under  pretence  of 
religion "  to  indulge  in  riot  and  wantonness ;  to  offend  the 
general  religious  sentiment  of  mankind  by  their  blasphemous 
speech  or  their  vicious  life  ;  to  disturb  others  in  their  religious 
worship  by  unseemly  uproar ;  to  undermine  the  foundations 
of  social  morality ;  or  to  poison  by  immorality  the  fountain 
of  youth.  Liberty  is  never  license,  and  all  liberty  is  only 
free  when  it  is  regulated  by  law.  When  there  shall  be  "  no 
king  in  Israel,  and  every  man  shall  do  what  is  right  in  his 
own  eyes,"  then  will  society  go  to  pieces. 

Says  Judge  Cooley  i1  "  While  thus  careful  to  establish,  pro- 
tect, and  defend  religious  freedom  and  equality,  the  Ameri- 
1  Constitutional  Limitations,  pp.  578-581. 


524  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

can  constitutions  contain  no  provisions  which  prohibit  the 
authorities  from  such  solemn  recognition  of  a  superintending 
Providence  in  public  transactions  and  exercises  as  the  general 
religious  sentiment  of  mankind  inspires.  .  .  .  (They  regard), 
without  discrimination,  religious  worship  and  religious  insti- 
tutions as  conservators  of  the  public  morals,  and  valuable,  if 
not  indispensable,  assistants  in  the  preservation  of  the  public 
order.  .  .  .  Profane  and  blasphemous  things  are  properly 
punished  as  crimes  against  society,  since  they  are  offences  to 
the  general  public  sense,  and  have  a  direct  tendency  to  under- 
mine the  moral  support  of  the  laws." 

This  then  is  the  central  principle  which  must  govern  all 
,  legislation  touching  religion  or  morality :  that  its  specific  aim 
must  be  for  the  general  good  of  society.  The  state  has  no 
call  to  make  men  religious  or  moral,  but  its  highest  duty  is 
to  take  care  that  society  shall  not  be  disintegrated  by  ir- 
religion  and  immorality.  While  the  American  principle 
declares  religious  freedom,  it  yet  does  not  put  irreligion  in 
the  place  of  power. 

And  this  brings  to  view  the  second  objection,  that  the 
Unchristian.  American  constitutions  are  unchristian.  This  founds  itself 
on  the  absence  from  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  of 
the  names  of  God  and  Christ,  as  also  from  some  of  the  state  con- 
stitutions. As  already  noted,  all  but  two  of  the  latter  contain 
the  name  of  God,  while  the  constitution  of  New  Hampshire 
contains  also  the  words  "Protestant"  and  "Christian." 
vl  According  to  the  argument  of  the  objector,  New  Hampshire 
\  must  be  the  only  Christian  state  in  the  Union. 

The  argument  is  specious,  appealing  only  to  a  superficial 
religious  sentiment,  and  the  long-sustained  effort  to  obtain 
a  religious  amendment  of  the  federal  constitution  has  been 
alike  idle  and  unnecessary.  The  religious  quality  of  a  people 
is  not  determinable  by  phrases  of  law,  but  by  the  spirit  and 
life.  If  the  American  people  should  insert  the  divine  names 
in  the  constitution,  that  would  not  keep  them  from  turning 
to  infidelity,  or  make  them  a  Christian  nation  after  such 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  525 

perversion.  New  Hampshire  is  no  more  Protestant  or  Chris- 
tian, with  those  terms  in  her  constitution,  than  is  Massachu- 
setts without  them.  Michigan,  which  excludes  the  name  of 
Deity  from  her  fundamental  law,  is  no  less  religious  than 
New  York,  which  is  "grateful  to  Almighty  God." 

If  we  would  seek  the  religion  of  the  American  nation,  we 
must  look  into  their  life,  custom,  and  institutions.  Looking  < 
on  these  things  —  the  innumerable  Christian  temples  and 
institutions  of  Christian  charity,  the  days  of  annual  thanks- 
giving, the  prayers  in  legislative  halls,  the  Bible  in  the  courts, 
the  constant  resort  in  legislation  and  judicature  to  religious 
and  Christian  principles  —  we  may  safely  declare  that,  if  the 
American  people  be  not  a  Christian  nation,  there  is  none  upon 
the  earth.  Sixty  years  ago  wrote  De  Tocqueville :  "  There  is 
no  country  in  the  whole  world  in  which  the  Christian  religion 
retains  a  greater  influence  over  the  souls  of  men  than  in 
America.  By  regulating  domestic  life  it  regulates  the  state. 
Religion  is  the  foremost  of  the  institutions  of  the  country.  I  I  )/ 
am  certain  that  the  Americans  hold  religion  to  be  indispen-  ' 
sable  to  the  maintenance  of  republican  institutions."  On 
this  opinion  of  the  acute  Frenchman,  the  Swiss  Schaff  com- 
mented, fifty  years  later :  "  I  fully  agree  with  De  Tocque- 
ville.  I  came  to  the  same  conclusion  shortly  after  my 
immigration  to  America  in  1844,  and  I  have  been  confirmed 
in  it  by  an  experience  of  forty-three  years  and  a  dozen  visits 
to  Europe."  l 

This  opinion  has  been  shared  by  every  statesman  and  every 
jurist  who  has  discoursed  on  the  subject.  Marshall,  Webster, 
Waite,  and  a  host  of  others  could  all  join  in  the  language  of 
Cooley,  "In  a  certain  sense  and  for  certain  purposes  it  is 
true  that  Christianity  is  part  of  the  law  of  the  land."  2  It  is 
impossible  to  fix  the  stigma  of  unchristian  on  the  American 
nation. 

Furthermore,  it  may  be  successfully  maintained  that,  far 

1  American  Historical  Association,  1886-1887,  p.  473. 

2  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  679. 


526 


RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 


,. 


/, 


from  being  unchristian,  this  principle  of  American  religious 
liberty  is  of  the  nature  of  pure  Christianity,  and  represents 
the  most  Christian  attitude  that  a  civil  government  can  take 
with^  reference  to  the  religion  of  the  people.  At  the  first 
glance,  indeed,  and  to  the  eye  which  chiefly  regards  externals, 
this  statement  seems  untrue.  In  such  view,  it  will  be  asked, 
"Is  not  confession  of  Christ  more  Christian  than  silence?" 
To  such  mind  there  seems  a  positive  gain  for  righteousness 
when  the  governmental  expression  and  action  put  on  the 
outward  forms  of  religion.  This  judgment  would  hold  that 
England,  with  its  legally  recognized  religious  establishment, 
is  a  more  Christian  nation  than  America. 

Of  which  judgment  it  may  be  truly  said  that  it  confounds 
national  duties  with  individual.  For  the  individual  the  con- 
fession of  Christ  is  certainly  more  Christian  than  silence. 
But  from  this  proposition  we  may  not  conclude  that  the  same 
thing  is  true  for  a  nation.  The  personal  confession  affects 
only  the  individual  who  makes  it.  The  constituency  is 
simple,  without  the  possibility  of  a  divided  mind.  With  a 
nation  it  is  otherwise.  There  may  be  a  constituency  of  mill- 
ions, for  whose  variety  no  single  confession  of  faith  can  speak. 
Though  a  majority  might  be  Christian,  there  yet  would  be  a 
minority,  for  whom  such  confession  would  be  false. 

The  difficulty  is  not  overcome  by  the  principle  of  majority 
rule,  for,  while  that  is  a  wise  and  just  principle  for  the  con- 
duct of  civil  affairs,  it  can  have  no  place  in  the  decision  of 
faith.  There  may  be  a  general  consensus  of  opinion,  which 
only  a  very  small  minority  of  the  people  oppose ;  but  so  long 
as  this  small  minority  do  oppose  it,  the  governmental  confes- 
sion of  it  involves  for  them  a  misrepresentation  and  injustice. 
It  is  thus  practically  impossible  for  a  government  to  make  a 
confession  of  faith  which  shall  be  at  once  true  and  just  to  all 
its  subjects,  who  are  equally  entitled  to  its  protection,  and  a 
respect  for  whose  rights  in  the  smallest  particular  is  of  the 
essence  of  Christian  morality. 
^  We  need  not  here  dwell  on  the  distinction  of  Roger  Will- 


FINAL  SETTLEMENTS  527 

iams  —  noted  in  the  first  chapter  —  between  the  totally  differ- 
ent aims  of  the  civil  state  and  the  Church.  "  Civility  and 
Religion"  are  entirely  distinct,  and  not  to  be  confounded. 
Nor  shall  one  interfere  with  the  other,  save  as  religious  con- 
viction in  the  mind  of  the  citizen  may  decide  his  action  in 
regard  to  civil  duties.  This  underlies  the  conception  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  and  it  is  distinctly  Christian.  Only  so  far  forth 
as  the  individual  citizens  shall  be  actuated  by  religious  or 
Christian  motives  can  the  government  be  religious  or  Chris- 
tian. No  mere  form  of  words  put  into  the  fundamental  law 
can  alter  that  condition,  and  no  legal  constraint  can  make' 
that  Christian  which  is  not  such. 

Finally,  this  American  principle,  by  which  the  government 
abstains  from  all  religious  function,  leaving  the  utmost  liberty 
of  religion  and  worship  to  the  people,  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  utterances  of  the  great  Founder  of  Christianity. 
The  things  of  God  and  of  Caesar  are  diverse.  The  fear  of  1  y 
God  urges  to  honor  the  king,  but  the  king's  command  cannot 
constrain  to  the  fear  and  service  of  God.  The  kingdom  of 
God  is  within  the  heart,  and  is  neither  conditioned  nor  sus- 
tained by  civil  enactments.  These  cannot  introduce  a  man 
into  that  kingdom,  nor  make  him  fit  for  entrance.  Christ 
Himself  declared,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  not 
patterned  after  the  fashion  of  this  world's  kingdoms,  not 
built  on  their  foundations,  nor  defended  by  their  arms.  With 
the  existence,  the  spread  and  the  support  of  this  kingdom  of 
Christ,  therefore,  the  governments  of  earth  have  nothing  to 
do,  save  as  they  refuse  to  interfere  with  its  freedom,  and  as 
they  guide  their  own  conduct  by  its  principles  of  divine 
righteousness.  Into  that  kingdom  of  Christ  men  enter  as 
individuals,  not  as  nations,  in  all  the  freedom  of  personal 
action,  unconstrained  by  external  force  and  subject  only  to 
the  influence  of  spiritual  motives  reaching  to  mind  and  heart. 

It  is  impossible  to  imagine  a  distinction  more  radical  or 
broader  than  that  between  things  of  this  spiritual  nature  and 
the  functions  of  civil  government.  To  God  alone  is  the  man 


528  RISE  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY 

responsible  for  his  religious  views  and  practice.  Under  God 
only  the  man  is  ruler  in  his  own  mind  and  soul.  This 
autonomy  of  the  soul  even  God  Himself  recognizes  and 
respects,  not  compelling  by  external  force,  but  appealing  to 
reason,  conscience,  and  affection.  Herein  is  the  divine  foun- 
dation for  Religious  Liberty.  Its  enactment  by  the  American 
constitutions  is  but  a  recognition  of  a  law  of  God  written  in 
the  nature  of  truth  and  of  man.  As  such  it  is  to  be  reckoned 
as  their  echo  of  the  divine  will,  and  fully  as  Christian  an 
utterance  as  ever  fell  from  the  lips  of  government. 


INDEX 


Aberdeen,  Bishop  of,  480. 

Abstract  of  Laws,  Cotton's,  169,  179. 

Adams,  Rev.  Hugh,  200. 

Adams,  Rev.  James,  128. 

Adams,  John,  470,  478,  480. 

Addison,  Rev.  Mr.,  464. 

"  Agreement "  for  government  in  New 

Hampshire,  290. 
Akerlye,  Hen.,  285  note. 
Albany,  323,  330,  339. 
Albemarle,  Lord,  115. 
Albigeuses,  45. 
Allen,  Rev.  Mr.,  213. 
Altham  (Jesuit),  366. 
Ambrose,  30. 
Amsterdam,  classis  of,  332,   350,   455, 

456. 
"Anabaptist  law"   in  Massachusetts, 

235. 

Anabaptists,  50,  63-65,  229. 
Anagni,  44. 
Andros,  Governor,  225,  229,  265,   326, 

328,  330,  331,  456. 
Annapolis,  463. 

Anne,  Queen,  261,  279,  343,  405,  445. 
Anthony,  Joseph,  113. 
Antinomian  controversy,  188. 
Antonides,  Domine,  333,  349-351. 
"  Apostle  to  Virginia,"  76,  391. 
Appeal  to  the  Public,  Chandler's,  469. 
Aquidneck,  139,  429. 
"  Arbitrary  Correction,"  320. 
Archdale,  Joseph,  125,  127. 
Argal,  Governor,  79. 
Arius,  32. 
Arminius,  52,  303. 
Arnold,  William,  239  note,  432. 
Articles,  Thirty-nine,  55. 
Ashley,  Lord,  115. 
Aspinwall,  William,  192,  429. 
"  Association  in  Arms"  (Md.),  384. 
Athanasius,  32. 
Atheist  in  Pennsylvania,  444. 
Attleboro  (Mass.),  515. 


Augsburg,  39,  49. 

Augustine,  33,  36,  489. 

Austin,  Ann,  214. 

Avalon,  362. 

"  Awakening,  The  Great,"  235,  271. 

Backerius,  Domine,  312. 

Bacon,  Lord,  134. 

Bacon,  Rev.  T.,  393. 

Balkom,  Rev.  Mr.,  514. 

Baltimore,  1st  Lord,  82,  362. 

Baltimore,  2d  Lord,  244,  363,  370-372, 
374,  378,  380,  381. 

Baltimore,  3d  Lord,  381-385,  392. 

Baltimore,  4th  Lord,  392,  393,  480. 

Bancroft,  Archbishop,  84. 

Bancroft,  George,  quoted,  1,  19,  79,  91, 
139,  233,  366,  373,  474. 

Baptism  of  children,  306,  315,  333  note. 

Baptists  in  Rhode  Island,  64;  in  Vir- 
ginia, 100,  111,  457,  480;  in  Carolina, 
118;  in  Massachusetts,  204,  228,  235, 
244. 

Barefoot,  Walter,  293,  296. 

Barrow,  60. 

Bartow,  Rev.  Mr.,  346. 

Baxter,  Ensign,  308. 

Baxter,  Major,  336. 

Bedford  (N.Y.),  338. 

Belgic  Confession,  52. 

Bellomont,  Lord,  341  note,  343. 

Bennett,  Major  General,  91. 

Bennett,  Philip,  85. 

Bennett,  Richard,  85,  370,  374,  379. 

Berkeley,  Lord,  115,  401. 

Berkeley,  Sir  William,  14,  86,  90,  91,  96, 
97, 115,  374. 

Beverly,  98. 

Bishops,  Colonial,  94,  391,  394,  Chapter 
VIII. 

Blackstone,  quoted,  55. 

Blackstone,  William,  149. 

Blair,  Commissary  James,  101, 105, 126, 
391,  461,  479. 


2M 


529 


530 


INDEX 


Blair,  Governor,  113. 

Blair,  James,  103. 

Blake,  Joseph,  118. 

Bland,  Colonel,  109. 

Blom,  Domine,  315. 

Blount,  Father,  368. 

"Blue  Laws,"  284. 

"  Body  of  Laws,"  in  Maryland,  371. 

"  Body  of  Laws,"  in  Pennsylvania,  443. 

"Body  of  Liberties,"  in  Massachu- 
setts, 180. 

Bogardus,  Everardus,  306,  307. 

Boniface  VIII. ,  36,  37,  43,  44. 

Boone,  Joseph,  127. 

Booth,  Mr.,  328. 

Bossuet,  60. 

Boston,  Church  of,  180  note. 

Bowne,  John,  320. 

Bradford,  Governor,  144,  147,  155, 183. 

Bradley,  Attorney-General,  356. 

Branford  (Conn.),  290. 

Bray,  Commissary  Thomas,  389,  390, 
392,  402,  460,  463. 

Brewster,  Captain,  79. 

Brewster,  of  Plymouth,  134. 

Briney,  Robert,  294. 

Briscoe,  opposes  Church  tax,  170. 

Brockholst,  Governor,  333  n6te. 

Brooklyn  (L.I.),  323. 

Brooklyn,  Church  of,  349. 

Brownes  of  Salem,  The,  67, 159,  243. 

Brownists,  60,  161. 

Bryce,  quoted,  16,  35,  39,  52. 

Buckner,  John,  97. 

Bulkley,  Rev.  Mr.,  255. 

Bull  Unam  Sanctam,  44. 

Burke,  quoted,  54,  63. 

Burlington  (N.J.),  413;  Church  of,  409. 

Burnett,  Governor,  354. 

Burroughs,  Edward,  219. 

Byllinge,  Edward,  401. 

Byrd,  Colonel  William,  123. 

Byzantium,  28. 

Calvert,  Benedict.  See  4th  Lord  Balti- 
more. 

Calvert,  Cecil,  363.  See  2d  Lord  Balti- 
more. 

Calvert,  Charles.  See  3d  Lord  Balti- 
more. 

Calvert,  Leonard,  369,  375. 

Calvert,  Sir  George,  1st  Lord  Baltimore, 
13,  362,  363. 

Calvin,  50. 

Cambridge  (Mass.),  191,  241. 


Cambridge  Platform,  202. 

Camm,  Rev.  John,  109. 

Canon  Law,  373. 

Canston,  420. 

Canterbury,  Archbishop  of,  334,  381,  459, 
465. 

Canterbury  (Conn.),  Church  of,  252. 

CAROLINAS,  THE,  First  charter,  115;  a 
palatinate,  116;  Anglican  establish- 
ment, 116;  toleration,  116;  second 
charter,  117;  emigration,  118;  Fun- 
damental Constitutions,  119;  reli- 
gious destitution,  123;  conspiracy 
against  dissenters,  124;  acts  of  1704, 
125, 457 ;  character  of  population,  127 ; 
acts  of  1704  annulled,  128;  clerical 
morals,  129;  few  churches,  130;  chap- 
els of  ease,  131 ;  disaffection,  132. 

Carre,  Sir  Robert,  224. 

Carroll,  Charles,  385. 

Carter,  Colonel,  109. 

Carteret,  Sir  George,  115,  263,  400. 

Cartwright,  George,  224. 

Cartwright,  Thomas,  59. 

Carver,  John,  134, 147. 

"Catholic  Christians,"  30. 

Chalcedon,  Council  of,  31. 

Chambers,  Thomas,  284  note. 

Chandler,  Dr.,  393,  395,  469,  470, 474, 477. 

Characteristics,  Colonial,  70. 

Charlemagne,  36,  38,  39. 

Charles  I.,  362,  379. 

Charles  II.,  209,  224,  227,  382,  400,  435, 
440. 

Chauncey,  Dr.,  469,  475. 

Chauncey,  Rev.  Charles,  143,  213. 

Chester  (Penn.),  442. 

Child,  Dr.  Robert,  198. 

Childs,  James,  112. 

Childs,  John,  139. 

Christianity,  spread  of,  22;  established 
by  Theodosius,  30. 

"  Christless  Rule  "  of  Connecticut,  388. 

Christmas  in  Massachusetts,  209. 

CHURCH  AND  STATE,  old  time  theories, 
1 ;  cause  of  wars,  19 ;  centre  of  history, 
19 ;  a  Western  problem,  20 ;  introduced 
by  Christ,  23;  Church  saves  society, 
35 ;  periods  of  development,  37 ;  effect 
of  Protestantism,  46;  Chapter  II. 

Church  attendance,  80  note,  140,  177, 
255,  269,  284. 

Church  charters  in  New  York,  342. 

Church,  Edwards's  definition  of  the, 
485-488. 


INDEX 


531 


"Church  Liberties"  in  Maryland,  371. 
Church  polity,  Robinson's  view  of,  156. 
Civil  Code,  Ward's,  179. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  115,  262. 

Clarke,  John,  194,  204,  434. 

Classis  in  New  York,  irregular,  333. 

Clayborne,  369,  370,  374,  378,  379. 

Clergy:  in  Virginia,  laws  concerning, 
80,  81,  94;  scarcity  and  morals,  85, 
94,  473;  in  Carolina,  129;  character 
and  influence  of  in  Massachusetts,  178, 
236;  in  Maryland,  386,  391,  392,  394, 
462, 484.  See  Tax  for  Church  Support. 

Clinton,  Governor,  354,  357,  359,  360, 
476. 

Cobb,  Elkanah,  252. 

Coddington,  William,  194  note,  196,  429 
434. 

Coelus  of  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  456 
note. 

Coggeshall,  John,  192. 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  182. 

Colebatch,  Rev.  Mr.,  394,  473. 

Colleton,  Sir  John,  115. 

Colman,  John,  219. 

Colman,  Rev.  Dr.,  219. 

Colve,  Governor,  322-326. 

"  Comforters  of  the  Sick,"  304,  305. 

Commissary,  Anglican,  356,  460. 

Commissioners  to  New  England,  Royal, 
141,  223,  262. 

Commonwealth,  The  English,  84, 89, 208, 
379. 

"Concessions"  of  the  New  Jersey  pro- 
prietaries, 400. 

Confederacy,  New  England,  141, 177, 178, 
271,  432. 

Conformity,"  "  Gentlemanly,  70. 

CONNECTICUT,  foundation,  238;  settle- 
ment of  three  towns,  240 ;  organization 
of  government,  242 ;  Church  establish- 
ment, 243 ;  liberality,  244 ;  care  of  the 
Church,  246;  high  moral  purposes, 
247;  organization  of  Churches,  247; 
maintenance,  248;  meeting-houses,  250; 
contribution  for  Presbyterian  Church 
in  New  York,  251 ;  ecclesiastical  court, 
252;  spiritual  affairs,  254;  religious 
life,  255;  report  on  the  state  of  re- 
ligion, 256;  Saybrook  synod,  258; 
allowance  of  dissent,  259;  Quakers, 
259;  charter  of  Charles  II.,  261 ;  royal 
commissioners,  262  ;  laws  for  dis- 
senters, 267 ;  act  to  prevent  disorders, 
268;  act  (1727)  for  ''ease  of  such  as 


soberly  dissent,"  270 ;  the  Great 
Awakening,  271 ;  act  of  1727  repealed, 
275 ;  act  against  the  Moravians,  277 ; 
"Separates,"  278;  prayers  for  royal 
family,  279;  character  of  the  estab- 
lishment, 279;  period  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, 500;  religious  legislation,  501; 
act  for  securing  Rights  of  Conscience, 
501;  "Protestantism, "501;  the  estab- 
lishment in  politics,  512;  defeat  of 
conservatives  and  disestablishment, 
513. 

Conscience,  7,  68,  208  note. 

Constans  and  Constantius,  29. 

Constantine,  2,  24-29. 

Constantinople,  25. 

Constitution  of  the  United  States,  507 
509. 

Constitutions,  State,  17,  518-520. 

Continental  Congress,  489. 

Conventicle  act  in  New  Amsterdam,  317. 

Coode,  John,  384-386. 

Cooley,  Judge,  quoted,  17,  521,  523. 

Copley,  Father,  362,  369,  370. 

Copley,  Governor,  386. 

Cornbury,  Lord,  14,  175,  267,  343,  353, 
360,  405,  409,  448. 

Cotton,  John,  68,  69,  165,  169,  181,  190, 
206. 

Covenanters,  48,  227. 

Coxe,  410. 

Craig,  Lewis,  112. 

Craig,  Rev.  Mr.,  464. 

Cranfield,  Governor,  295-298. 

Cranmer,  53. 

Crashawe,  W.,  76. 

Craven,  Lord,  115. 

Cromwell,  60,  89,  379,  434. 

Cujus  regio,  ejus  religio,  48. 

Culpepper,  Governor,  97. 
ushing,  134. 

Cutler,  Rev.  Timothy,  268,  464,  466. 

Dale,  Sir  Thomas,  76. 

Dam  as  us,  30. 

Danforth,  Thomas,  232. 

Dante,  45. 

Davenport,  James,  271-273. 

Davenport,  John,  213,  280,  282,  289,  290. 

Davies,  Samuel,  102-104. 

Dedham  Case,  515. 

Deist  in  Pennsylvania,  444. 
DELAWARE,    with   Pennsylvania,  440; 
separated,  452;    little   legislation  on 
religion  —  oaths  for  naturalization  and 


532 


INDEX 


office— Protestantism,  452 ;  franchise, 
453;  period  of  the  Revolution,  503; 
Christian  religion  and  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  503 ;  restrictions  removed,  513. 

Denton,  Rev.  Mr.,  313. 

Dickinson,  John,  480. 

Dinwiddie,  Governor,  106,  107. 

Diocletian,  23. 

Disabilities  in  England,  civil,  55. 

Disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church, 
12,  66. 

D'Israeli,  11. 

Dissent,  in  Virginia,  96,  483;  in  Caro- 
lina, 118,  125,  127,  132 ;  in  Massachu- 
setts, 159,  181,  188,  204,  234;  in  Con- 
necticut, 258,  267,  270,  275,  501;  in 
New  Hampshire,  298. 

"Dissenters,"  misuse  of  the  term,  236, 
339,  466,  468,  472. 

Dockura,  410,  414. 

Doddridge,  Philip,  410,  414. 

Domicile,  law  of,  in  Massachusetts,  176, 
192 ;  in  Connecticut,  285. 

Donatist  controversy,  32. 

Dongan,  Governor,  335. 

Dorchester  (Mass.),  217,  241. 

Dordrecht,  Synod  of,  52,  323. 

Dover  (N.H.),290. 

Drisius,  Samuel,  306,  315,  319,  328. 

Dubois,  Domine,  333. 

Duche',  Mr.,  467. 

Dudley,  Thomas,  160,  165, 167, 178,  240. 

Dunster,  Rev.  Henry,  176,  204. 

Durand,  Rev.  Mr.,  86. 

Durham,  Bishop  of,  116,  364. 

"Dutch  Privileges  "  in  New  York,  325, 
333. 

Dwight,  Timothy,  513. 

Dyer,  Mary,  217. 

East  Chester  (N. Y.) ,  338. 
Eaton,  Theophilus,  280,  282. 
Ecclesiastical   courts,  Legislative,  126, 

128,  252,  391,  392. 
Eden,  Governor,  394. 
Edenton  (N.C.),  123. 
Edmundson,  William,  91, 115. 
Edward  I.,  40,  44. 
Edward  III.,  44. 
Edward  VI.,  53. 

Edwards,  Jonathan,  64,  214,  485-489. 
Egidius  de  Colonna,  45. 
Egremont,  Lord,  468. 
Elizabeth  (N.J.),  477. 
Elizabeth,  Queen,  53,  54,  74. 


Elliott,  Andrew,  465. 

Elliott,  Rev.  Mr.,  255. 

Endicott,  John,  148,  152,  155,  156,  159, 
167, 188,  426. 

Enfield  (Conn.),  279. 

England,  Church  of ;  origin  and  charac- 
teristics, 11,  53-56;  established  in 
Virginia,  75 ;  in  Carolina,  116 ;  futile 
efforts  to  establish  in  New  York,  175, 
334,  336,  338-340,  343;  in  Maryland, 
381,  386;  in  New  Jersey,  402,  405;  in 
Georgia,  420. 

Ephesus,  Council  of,  31. 

Episcopacy,  in  Massachusetts,  159,  223, 
233,  244 ;  in  Connecticut,  263,  266,  268, 
270 ;  in  New  Hampshire,  295 ;  in  New 
York,  328,  334,  336-339,  341-343,  346, 
361 ;  in  New  Jersey,  406,  408,  411,  415 ; 
in  Pennsylvania,  441,  448. 

Erastus,  58. 

European  attitude,  present,  66  note. 

Evans,  Rev.  Evan,  461. 

Evelin,  George,  369  note. 

Evertsen,  Admiral,  322. 

Exeter  (N.H.),290. 

Fabricius  (Lutheran),  324. 

Fairfield  (Conn.) ,  church  of,  254. 

Family  prayer,  155,  257. 

Feake,  Tobias,  319. 

Federalists  in  Connecticut,  512. 

Fenwick,  George,  239,  261. 

Fenwick,  John,  401. 

Fifth  Monarchy  men,  214. 

Finland,  10. 

Fisher,  Mary,  214. 

Fisher,  Professor,  quoted,  49,  52. 

Fishkill  (N.Y.),360. 

Fiske,  John,  438. 

Fitch,  Rev.  Mr.,  255. 

"  Five-Mile  Act,"  234,  270,  466. 

Flatbush  (N.Y.),  Church  of,  349. 

Flatlands  (N.Y.),  Church  of,  349. 

Fletcher,  Governor,  14,  327,  336,  337, 

340,  341  note,  355,  360,  407,  446. 
Flushing  (N.Y.),  308,  309,  317,  319,  320. 
Fordim,  Rev.  Mr.,  313. 
Foster,  Willi.,  180  note. 
Fowle,  Thomas,  198. 
Fox,  George,  61,  213. 
Franchise.    See  Freemen's  Law. 
Franconian  emperors,  39. 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  503. 
Franklin,  Governor,  417. 
Frederic  II.,  42. 


INDEX 


533 


Freeman,  Bernardus,  349-351. 

Freeman's  Law,  in  Plymouth,  138;  in 
Massachusetts,  171,  227 ;  in  Connecti- 
cut, 245 ;  in  New  Haven,  284, 288,  289 ; 
in  New  Hampshire,  291,  294 ;  in  Mary- 
land, 375 ;  in  Pennsylvania,  442,  445 ; 
in  Delaware,  453. 

Freemen,  reluctance  to  become,  202. 

French,  fear  of  the,  108,  277,  357,  450. 

French  Eevolution,  512. 

Friendly  Address,  Chandler's,  477  note. 

Fuller,  Dr.  Samuel,  156,  162. 

"  Fundamental  Agreement,"  281,  287. 

"  Fundamental  Constitutions,"  119. 

Gale,  Rev.  Miles,  130. 

Galerius,  23. 

"  Gallican  Liberties,"  44. 

George  I.,  392,  415. 

George  II.,  419,  452. 

George  III.,  342. 

George,  John,  228. 

GEORGIA,  settlement,  418 ;  charter,  lib- 
erty of  conscience  to  all  "  except 
Papists,"  419;  care  for  religion,  420; 
charter  annulled  and  Church  of  Eng- 
land established,  420 ;  period  of  Revo- 
lution, freedom  to  all  Protestants, 
507. 

German  electors  at  Reuss,  45. 

Germans  in  Virginia,  98. 

Gersdorf ,  M.  de,  359. 

Gilchrist,  Rev.  W.,  468. 

Glebes,  80  note,  334,  504,  511. 

Gnadenhutten,  358. 

Godwyn,  Morgan,  88,  94. 

Goetwater,  John,  314. 

Goff,  289. 

Gooch,  Governor,  102-104,  111. 

Gookin,  Daniel,  85. 

Goold,  Thomas,  228. 

Gorton,  Samuel,  195-197. 

Gott.  Charles,  157. 

Gratian,  30. 

Gravesend,  309,  319. 

Great  Law,"  "  The  (Pa.),  443. 

Great  Swamp  Society,  249. 

Greensmith,  Stephen,  193. 

Greenwich  (Conn.),  Church  of, 209. 

Gregory  the  Great,  36,  38. 

Gregory  VII.,  36,  40,  41. 

Gregory  IX.,  42. 

Grievances  of  Boston  meeting,  475. 

Grotius,  52,  59. 

Guilford  (Conn.),  251,  252,  272,  285. 


Haburne,  Rev.  Mr.,  344. 

Hakluyt,  74. 

Half-Way  Covenant,  210,  235,  254,  257, 
487,  488. 

Halifax,  Lord,  468. 

Hallett,  William,  317. 

Hampton,  John,  351. 

Hampton  (N.H.),290. 

Hanover  presbytery,  491. 

Harding,  William,  284  note. 

Harrison,  Rev.  Thomas,  86  note. 

Hart,  Edward,  319. 

Hart,  Governor,  463. 

Hartford,  239. 

Hartford,  Church  of  East,  249. 

Hartford  Church  quarrel,  253. 

Hart,  Rev.  Mr.,  272. 

Harvard  College,  194. 

Harvey,  Governor,  83. 

Hassell,  John,  130. 

Haynes,  Governor,  241,  426. 

Healing  Question,  Vane's,  60. 

Heathcote,  Colonel,  461. 

Hebrew  Church,  21. 

Helvetic  Confession,  51. 

Heinans,  Mrs.,  68. 

Hempstead  (L.I.),  312,  318,  338. 

Henderson,  Commissary,  392. 

Henderson,  Rev.  Jacob,  408. 

Henrietta  Maria,  Queen,  363. 

Henry  III.  of  Germany,  39. 

Henry  IV.  of  Germany,  40,  41. 

Henry,  Patrick,  110, 113,  491,  495,  502. 

Henry  VIII.  of  England,  46,  53,  54. 

Heresy,  10 ;  law  against,  in  Massachu- 
setts, 176 ;  case  of,  in  New  York,  345. 

Higginson,  Francis,  153, 157, 161, 182. 

Hildebrand,  36,  40. 

Hildreth,  450. 

Hobbes,  59. 

Hodge,  Charles,  44. 

Hodsham  (Quaker) ,  318. 

Hofgoed,  John,  360. 

Holland,  toleration  in,  52. 

Holmes,  Obadiah,  204. 

Holt,  Lord  Chief  Justice,  137. 

Holy  Roman  Empire,  39. 

Hooker,  Dr.,  266. 

Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  59,  489. 

Hooker,  Thomas,  239-241,  259,  280,  367. 

Howard,  John,  485. 

Howard  of  Effingham,  Lord,  97. 

Hubbard,  James,  308. 

Hubbard,  Rev.  Mr.  (of  Jamaica),  345. 

Hubbard,  Rev.  Mr.  (of  Meriden),  250. 


534 


INDEX 


Hubbard,  Rev.  Peter  (of  Hingham),  143 

note,  198. 

Huguenots,  98,  302,  380. 
Hunter,  Governor,  348,  351,  354,  355, 

411,  463. 

Hunt,  Goodman,  285  note. 
Hunt,  Rev.  Robert,  75. 
Huntington  (L.I.) ,  333  note. 
Huss,  John,  46. 
Hutchinson,  Anne,  67,  139,  188-194,  259, 

308. 

Hutchinson,  F.,  180  note. 
Hyde,  Edward.    See  Lord  Corribury. 
Hypocracie  Unmasked,  Winslow's,  142, 

200. 

Independence,    spirit   of,  14,  162,  369, 

390. 

Indian  missions,  277,  357. 
Indians,  conversion  of,  74. 
Induction.    See  Presentation. 
Infidelity,  377,  444. 
Inglis,  Rev.  Charles,  464,  478. 
Ingoldsby,  Governor,  411. 
In  hoc  signo  vinces,  24. 
Innes,  quoted,  25,  31,  42,  62. 
Innocent  III.,  41. 
Innocent  IV.,  42. 
Inquisition,  45,  508. 
Interdict  on  France,  42. 
Intolerance  in  New  England,  68. 
Investiture,  31,  41. 
"  Invincible  Doctor,"  45. 
Ireland,  religious  liberty  in,  66  note. 
Irish  Church   disestablishment,  55,  66 

note. 
Irish  Romanists,  sufferings  of,  62. 

Jackson,  William,  352. 

Jamaica  Church  case,  244,  345-348, 457. 

Jamaica  (L.I.),  318,338. 

James  I.,  134,  362. 

James  II.,  232,  265,  328,  335,  382,  383, 
400,  440. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  2,  490,  493,  495-497, 
498  note,  512. 

Jesuits  in  the  colonies,  177,  335, 368,  370, 
372,  373. 

Jesus,  Society  of,  368. 

Jews  in  the  colonies,  3JL6,  377,  444,  450. 

John,  King,  42. 

John  of  Paris,  45. 

Johnson,  Rev.  Samuel,  268,  466. 

Jonas  Cast  up  at  London,  New  Eng- 
land's, 199. 


Jones,  Rev.  John,  249. 
Jones,  Rev.  Mr.,  333  note. 
Josselyn's  Two   Voyages  to  New  Eng- 
land, 230  note. 
Jourdain,  Rev.  Mr.,  226. 
Journal,  Winthrop's,  163, 165  note,  373. 
Jovian,  29. 
Jowles,  385. 
Judaism,  22,  28. 

Judicial  sentences,  180  note,  285  note. 
Julian,  29. 

"  Jurisdiction  "  of  New  Haven,  285. 
Jury  in  New  Haven,  284. 

Kent,  Chancellor,  17. 
Kent  Island,  369. 
Kieft,  Governor,  307. 
Kinderhook,  344. 
King's  Chapel,  231. 
King's  College,  476. 
King's  Farm,  355. 
Kingston  (N.Y.),  344. 
Knowles,  Rev.  John,  86. 
Knox,  John,  56,  485. 
Kultur  Kampf,  20. 

Latin  School  in  New  York,  335. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  84,  160,  182,  239,  280. 

Laurie,  Gawen,  401. 

Lawes  Divine,  Moral  and  Martial,  77, 

324. 

Law,  Governor,  278. 
Law,  growth  of  American,  1. 
Law  in  the  colonies,  English,  137. 
Leah  and  Rachel,  95,  370  and  note,  374 

note. 

Learning,  Dr.,  477. 
Lechford.    See  Lyford. 
Leddra,  William,  217. 
Lee,  Richard  Henry,  495. 
Leete,  Governor,  264. 
Leisler,  Jacob,  331,  336. 
Lewis,  John,  110. 
Lewis,  William,  372. 
Liberality  at  Plymouth,  139. 
Liberty,  Burke's  definition  of,  63. 
Lichford,  Bishop  of,  4GO. 
Licinius,  25,  26. 
Lieber,  Francis,  quoted,  7, 16. 
Limitations,  522. 
Line,  Thomas,  204. 
Locke,  John,  61,  62, 119. 
London,  Bishop  of,  130,  236,  269,  336, 

347,  354,  355,  391,  393,  394,  459,  461, 

463,  465,  473. 


INDEX 


535 


Lothair,  41. 

Louis  XIV.,  45. 

Lucas,  Nicholas,  401. 

Ludlow,  Mr.,  180  note. 

Lusk,  Major,  508. 

Luther,  50,  485. 

Lutheran  Church,  47. 

Lutherans  in  New  Amsterdam,  302,  313, 

324;  in  New  York,  328,  340,  360. 
Lyford,  Thomas,  143-145. 
Lyme  (Conn.),  Church  of,  279. 
Lynde,  Colonel,  272. 
Lynn  (Mass.) ,  Baptists  at,  204. 

Mackemie,  Francis,  97,  351-353. 

Mack  (Moravian) ,  278. 

McNeish,  Rev.  Mr.,  347. 

Madison,  James,  490,  492,  495-497,  508, 
509. 

Magna  Charta,  42,  233,  371,  377. 

Maine,  state  of,  515. 

Mallory,  Rev.  Philip,  94,  459. 

Mamaroneck  (N.Y.),338. 

Manor,  Lords  of  the,  305. 

Markham,  Governor,  446. 

Marriage  by  clergymen  only,  520. 

Marriage  by  English  clergy,  476,  494. 

Marshall,  John,  495,  525. 

Martin,  Ambrose,  180  note. 

MARYLAND,  changes,  362 ;  charter,  363, 
370,  371;  a  palatinate,  364;  religious 
matters,  364;  objections,  367;  settle- 
ment, 368;  trouble  with  Clayborne, 
369;  "Declaration  against  the  Pat- 
ent," 370;  first  assembly,  370;  "  Body 
of  Laws  and  Church  Liberties,"  371 ; 
official  oath,  372 ;  no  canon  law,  373 ; 
Protestant  majority,  374;  Romanist 
officials,  375;  Toleration  Act,  376; 
oath  of  fidelity,  377 ;  Puritan  seizure 
of  government,  379;  Baltimore  re- 
stored by  Cromwell,  380;  exclusion 
of  Romanists  from  office,  381 ;  efforts 
for  Church  of  England,  381;  charter 
in  danger,  382 ;  Coode's  rebellion,  384 ; 
charter  revoked,  385 ;  Anglican  Church 
established,  386 ;  non-conformity,  388 ; 
new  act  of  establishment,  389 ;  clerical 
morals,  391;  Baltimore  restored,  392; 
act  reducing  stipends,  394 ;  Proclama- 
tion and  Vestry  Act,  396;  non-con- 
formity, 397;  Romanists,  398;  period 
of  Revolution,  503 ;  Bill  of  Rights,  503 ; 
disestablishment,  504. 

Mary  of  Scots,  56. 


Mary,  Queen,  53. 

Mason,  George,  492,  497. 

Mason,  Major,  423,  435. 

MASSACHUSETTS,  arrival  of  Endicott, 
148;  Salem,  149;  charter,  149;  fare- 
well to  Church  of  England,  151;  re- 
ligious aims,  154;  Church  established, 
157;  expulsion  of  the  Brownes,  159; 
Winthrop  and  Dudley,  161;  tax  for 
Church,  169;  freeman's  law,  171; 
reasons  for  exclusiveness,  172,  378; 
magistrates  and  the  Church,  173 ;  scru- 
tiny, 174;  presentation,  175;  origin 
of  establishment,  175 ;  religious  laws, 
176 ;  influence  of  ministers,  178 ;  Body 
of  Liberties,  180 ;  Roger  Williams,  181- 
188;  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  188-194;  Gor- 
ton, 195-197 ;  Presbyterian  Cabal,  198  ; 


Cambridge  synod,  201;  Clarke  and  / 
Holmes,  204;  discontent,  207;  Christ- 
mas, 209;  relaxation  of  morals,  209; 
Half- Way  Covenant,  210;  Quakers, 
213-223;  Episcopacy  and  suffrage, 
223;  king's  commissioners,  224;  new 
freeman's  law,  227;  Baptists  secure 
liberty,  228;  charter  annulled,  229; 
Episcopacy  allowed,  232;  charter  of 
William  III.,  religious  liberty  for  all 
except  Romanists,  233 ;  Five- Mile  Act, 
234;  Great  Awakening,  235;  futile 
effort  to  obtain  a  synod,  236;  loss  of 
ministerial  power,  237 ;  period  of  Revo- 
lution, 483;  Bill  of  Rights,  500;  Fed- 
eral constitution,  508;  Dedham  case, 
515 ;  disestablishment,  515. 

Mather,  Cotton,  223,  234,  236,  237,  268. 

Mather,  Increase,  213,  233. 

Mather,  Richard,  213. 

Mather,  Samuel,  254. 

Matthews,  Rev.  Marmaduke,  174,  204. 

Maurice  of  Orange,  52. 

Maury,  Rev.  James,  109. 

Maverick,  Samuel,  139,  149,  198,  224. 

Maxentius,  24. 

Mayflower  Compact,  136. 

Mayhew,  Dr.,  467. 

Maynooth,  66  note. 

Meade,  Bishop,  95. 

Mecklenberg  Declaration,  118. 

Meeting-houses,  250. 

Megapolensis,  John,  305,  306,  309,  315, 
325. 

Megapolensis,  Samuel,  325. 

Meiggs,  Captain,  251. 

Melanchthon,  49. 


536 


INDEX 


Menendez,  74. 

Mennonites,  91,  111,  494. 

Meriden  (Conn.) ,  Church  of,  249. 

Methodists  in  Virginia,  100,  483,  491. 

Michaelius,  Jonas,  303. 

Middlebush  (L.I.),  317- 

Middletown  (Conn.) ,  Church  of,  249. 

Midwout  (L.I.),311. 

Milan,  Edict  of,  25,  26. 

Milford  (Conn.),  279,  286. 

Militia  duty,  356,  380. 

Miller,  Rev.  John,  340. 

Milton,  434. 

Milvian  Bridge,  battle  of,  24. 

Ministers.    See  Clergy. 

Ministers  excluded  from  office  and  legis- 
lature, 368,  502. 

"Ministry  Act"  (N.Y.),  338-344,  405, 
406. 

Minuit,  Peter,  303. 

Mitchell,  "  The  Matchless,"  213. 

Model  of  Christian  Charitie,  Winthrop's, 
158. 

Mompesson,  Judge,  348,  352. 

Monophysite  controversy,  20. 

Monroe,  James,  496. 

Montgomery,  Governor,  354,  415. 

Moody,  Joshua,  296. 

Moody,  Sir  Henry,  308. 

Moore,  Domine,  317. 

Moravians,  111,  277,  357,  360. 

Morean,  Rev.  Nicholas,  460. 

Morley,  John,  62. 

Morris,  Joshua,  103. 

Morris,  Lewis,  339, 347, 348, 355, 409  note, 
413,  415. 

Morris,  Samuel,  101. 

Morton  of  Merry  Mount,  147, 170. 

Mosaic  law,  287. 

Mosley,  99. 

Muggleton,  Ludovick,  214. 

Muirson,  Rev.  Mr.,  266. 

Munster,  65. 

Murray,  Rev.  Alexander,  459. 

Murray,  Rev.  Mr.,  513. 

Mythologies,  21. 


Nansemond  County  (Va.) ,  85. 
Nationalism,  36,  43,  45. 
Nation,  birth  of  the,  42. 
Naturalization  oath,  449. 
Neill,  Rev.  Hugh,  473,  480. 
Neo-Platonism,  24. 
Netherlands,  52,  304. 


New  Amsterdam,  303,  306,  313,  322; 
Church  of,  309. 

Newark  (N. J.) ,  290,  399. 

Newfoundland,  362. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE,  settlement,  290; 
"Agreement,"  291;  franchise,  291; 
union  with  Massachusetts,  292 ;  Quak- 
ers, 293 ;  Church  support,  294 ;  Episco- 
pal struggle,  295 ;  Moody 's  resistance, 
296 ;  town  establishment,  298 ;  dissent, 
298;  test  oath,  299;  state  constitution, 
499;  Bill  of  Rights,  500;  Protestant 
Christians,  500;  grudging  toleration, 
515;  constitution  of  1889  retains 
"Protestant  Christians,"  516. 

NEW  HAVEN  COLONY,  settlement,  281  ; 
theocracy,  282;  rigorous  laws,  284; 
New  England  Confederacy  and  New 
Haven  jurisdiction,  285  ;  Quakers, 
287;  suffrage  and  discontent,  288; 
regicides,  289;  union  with  Connecti- 
cut, 289. 

NEW  JERSEY,  Berkeley  and  Carteret, 
"  concessions,"  400 ;  purchase  of  West 
Jersey,  401;  religious  liberty,  402; 
political  turmoil,  404;  Quaker  influ- 
ence, 404;  crown  takes  over  both 
Jerseys,  405 ;  Church  of  England,  406 ; 
no  establishment,  408 ;  Quakers,  409- 
415 ;  Hunter's  administration,  411-416 ; 
Presbyterian  charter,  417;  period  of 
Revolution,  502;  full  liberty  to  Prot- 
estants, 503 ;  test  for  office,  503. 

"New  Lights,"  271,  278. 

New  London  (Conn.),  Church  of,  248. 

Newtown  (L.I.) ,  307,  347,  352. 

Newtown  (Mass.),  191,  281. 

New  Utrecht  (L.I.) ,  Church  of,  349. 

NEW  YORK,  New  Netherland,  302;  care 
for  religion,  303;  Reformed  Church 
established,  304;  toleration,  307,  322; 
support  of  ministers,  310;  harshness 
of  Stuyvesant,  312;  Lutherans  an- 
noyed, 313;  Stuyvesant  rebuked,  314; 
Jews,  316  ;  Conventicle  Act,  317; 
Quakers,  318;  English  conquest,  322; 
brief  return  of  Dutch,  religious  acts, 
322-324;  New  York  and  English  re- 
turn, 325;  "Dutch  Privileges,"  325; 
"Duke's  Laws,"  326;  toleration  and 
civil  control  of  Church,  327;  procla- 
mation of  religious  liberty,  329 ;  arro- 
gance of  Andros,  330;  "Charter  of 
Liberties,"  333;  Church  of  England, 
334;  religious  state  of  the  province, 


INDEX 


537 


335;  instructions  of  William  III.,  336; 
tests,  337;  "  Ministry  Act,"  338;  con- 
strued by  assembly  as  non- Anglican, 
340  ;  Cornbury's  usurpations,  344  ; 
Jamaica  case,  345;  Antonides  and 
Freeman,  349;  Mackemie,  351;  Gov- 
ernor Hunter,  354;  Quakers  again, 
355;  Moravians  persecuted,  357; 
growth  of  liberty,  360 ;  period  of  the 
Revolution,  501;  repeal  of  "Ministry 
Act,"  502;  discriminations  against 
Romanists  and  ministers,  afterward 
repealed,  502 ;  full  liberty,  502. 

Nicsea,  Council  of,  31. 

Nicholas,  Robert  Carter,  493. 

Nichols,  Colonel  Richard,  224,  326. 

Nicholson,  Governor,  87,  333,  388. 

Nieuwenhuysen,  Rev.  William,  328. 

Northampton  (Mass.),  486. 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  See  The  Carolinas, 
period  of  the  Revolution,  religious 
restrictions,  full  liberty,  504. 

Northey,  Attorney-General,  68, 106. 

Norton,  James,  252. 

Norton,  Rev.  John,  201,  203,  207,  222. 

Norwalk  (Conn.),  Church  of,  250,  253. 

Norwich  (Conn.),  Church  of,  249,  254. 

Oakes,  President,  68. 

Oath,  official,  in  Maryland,  372,  375. 

"  Oath  of  Fidelity,"  377. 

Oaths.    See  Tests. 

Occam,  William  of,  45. 

Ogden,  David,  417. 

Oglethorpe,  418^20. 

Oldenbarneveldt,  52. 

Oldham,  John,  144. 

"  Old  Lights,"  271. 

"  Old  Side,"  271. 

"  Opprobrious  terms,"  372,  376. 

Orange,  Fort,  305,  323. 

Ordination,  331,  332,  455,  466. 

Organization  of  Churches,  119,  157,  173, 

247,  259,  270,  275,  276. 
Origin  of  colonial  establishments,  72. 
Osburne,  Thomas,  228. 
Otto  the  Great,  39. 
Owen  (Quaker),  91. 
Owen,  Rev.  John  (of  England),  203. 
Owen,  Rev.  John  (of  Groton),  274. 

Paganism,  21. 

Paine,  Thomas,  9. 

"  Palatine,"  116,  363,  383. 

Palatines,  100,  449  note. 


Palmer,  Rev.  Solomon,  467. 

Parker,  Rev.  Joel,  221. 

"  Parsons'  Cause,"  110,  395,  473,  484. 

Patronage  in  Virginia,  87. 

Patroons,  305. 

Peasants'  War,  50. 

Pelham  Manor,  338. 

Pendleton,  Edmund,  493. 

PENNSYLVANIA,  71,  403,  422;  charter, 
440;  no  church  establishment,  441; 
Penn's  Address  and  "Holy  Experi- 
ment," 441;  Frame  of  Government, 
with  religious  restrictions,  442 ;  first 
assembly  and  the  "  Great  Law,"  443; 
oath  of  toleration  act,  445;  charter 
voided  and  province  joined  to  New 
York,  446;  charter  restored  and  new 
act  of  settlement,  446 ;  final  frame  of 
government  voided  by  Queen  Anne, 
who  imposes  toleration  act  of  England, 
447;  ratified  by  the  legislature,  447; 
relief  of  Quakers,  449;  Protestant- 
ism, 449;  no  persecution,  450;  act  to 
disarm  Romanists,  450 ;  period  of  Rev- 
olution, 482;  restrictions,  503;  in  con- 
stitution of  1837,  515;  law  against 
blasphemy,  516. 

Penn,  William,  367, 401, 440, 445-447, 482. 

Periods  of  development,  37. 

Perry's  Collections,  464. 

Persecution,  3;  of  Diocletian,  23;  right 
or  wrong,  67 ;  in  Virginia,  90,  99, 104, 
108,  111,  470;  in  Carolina,  125;  in 
Massachusetts,  159, 181,  188,  195,  204, 
213r<In'  New  Hampshire,  293,  296;  in 
New  Amsterdam,  313-320;  in  New 
York,  351-353. 

Persian  philosophy,  21. 

Peter,  Apostle,  30. 

Peter  of  Alexandria,  30. 

Petrie,  Professor,  364. 

Philip  the  Fair,  43. 

Phillips,  Rev.  Mr.,  356. 

Pilgrims,  The,  48, 55, 66.   See  Plymouth. 

Plaine  Dealing,  Lyford's  146. 

Plainfield  (Conn.),  252. 

Planters'  Plea,  154. 

Plastowe,  Josias,  180  note. 

PLYMOUTH  COLONY,  Pilgrims  in  Hol- 
land, 133;  desire  to  go  to  Virginia, 
134;  Plymouth  Company,  134;  May- 
flower compact,  135 :  emigration  as  a 
Church,  136;  civil  affairs,  freeman's 
law,  138;  little  discord  and  liberal 
spirit,  139 ;  little  religious  legislation, 


538 


INDEX 


140;  criticised  for  laxity,  141;  trial  of 
Lyford  and  Oldham,  144;  "Particu- 
lars," 144;  action  against  Morton, 
146 ;  united  to  Massachusetts,  148. 

Polhemus,  Domine,  311. 

Popery,"  "  No,  55,  82,  85,  209,  336,  357, 
365, 369, 381, 384,  396,  445,  451,  502,  508. 

Popple,  William,  61,  355,  416. 

Porter,  John,  90. 

Powell,  Michael,  202. 

Poyer,  Rev.  Mr.,  348,  355. 

Pragmatic  Sanction,  43. 

Prayer  for  royal  family,  299. 

Prayer  for  the  king,  478. 

Prayer  for  the  United  States  govern- 
ment, 504. 

Prayer  meetings,  318,  319. 

"  Preference,"  15,  513. 

Presbyterian  Cabal,  140,  198. 

Presbyterian  Church  in  New  York,  342, 
475. 

Presbyterianism  in  England,  58. 

Presbyterians,  in  Virginia,  100,  102,  106, 
112,  484,  496;  in  Carolina,  118;  in  New 
Jersey,  400,  402,  417. 

Presbytery  of  Hanover,  491. 

Presentation  in  New  York,  326,  330,  334, 
336,  340,  344,  347-350. 

Preston,  Sister,  284  note. 

Prevoost,  Bishop,  480. 

Prince,  Mary,  215. 

Princes,  power  of,  48. 

Printing,  in  Virginia,  97 ;  in  Maryland, 
373. 

Proclamation  to  the  Peoples  of  the  East, 
27. 

Profanation  of  the  Sacraments,  268, 269. 

Progress  of  the  faith,  30. 

Protestant  divisions,  47. 

Protestantism,  rise  of,  46. 

Protestants  in  Pennsylvania,  449,  450. 

Providence  (R.I.),  5,  423,  424,  430. 

Pumroy,  Benjamin,  274. 

Puritans,  55;  in  Virginia,  83,  84,  85, 
244,  374,  457;  in  Maryland,  244,  370, 
377,  379,  384,  387,  388. 

Pynchon,  William,  203. 

Pyrlaens  (Moravian),  278. 

Quakers,  61,  64,  71;  in  Virginia,  89, 
494;  in  Carolina,  126,  127-129;  in 
Plymouth,  139, 142;  in  Massachusetts, 
213-223,  244;  in  Rhode  Island,  217, 
437;  in  Connecticut,  259;  in  New 
Haven,  287;  in  New  Hampshire,  293; 


in  New  Amsterdam,  318;  in  New 
York,  337,  356;  in  Maryland,  380, 
387-390,  396;  in  New  Jersey,  399,  401, 

403,  406,  409-415;    in    Pennsylvania, 
448,  450. 

Quary,  Colonel,  412,  461. 

Quebec,  490. 

Queens  County  (N.Y.).  338,  344. 

Quinnipiac,  281. 

Quo  warranto,  writ  of,  229,  382. 

Raleigh,  Sir  Walter,  74. 

Ramsey,  Rev.  John,  107. 

Randolph,  Edmund,  231. 

Randolph,  Peyton,  105. 

Ranke,  quoted,  19,  40,  43,  47. 

Rates.    See  Tax  for  Church  Support. 

Rawle,  quoted,  17. 

Reeves,  John,  214. 

Reformation,  the,  20,  46. 

Reformed  Church,  47;  established  in 
New  Netherland,  304,  322,  323;  dis- 
established, 325;  referred  to,  339,  399, 
455,  456. 

Reformed  Dutch  (Collegiate)  Church  in 
New  York  City,  charter  of,  341. 

Regicides,  289. 

Regiwn  Donum,  66  note. 

Religio  illicita,  22,  227. 

Religio  licita,  24. 

Religion,  use  of  force  in,  368. 

RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY,  American  idea,  2 ; 
growth,  4 ;  not  freedom  of  conscience, 
6 ;  not  toleration,  7  ;  equality  of  all,  8; 
relation  to  civil  law,  12;  fostering 
conditions,  14;  elements,  15;  defini- 
tion by  Story,  16;  by  Lieber,  Kent, 
Rawle,  Cooley,  17;  proclamation  of, 
by  Constantine,  25;  no  liberty  in 
nationalism,  45;  proclamation  of,  in 
America  by  James  II.,  328,  445 ;  statits 
in  Maryland,  363,  371,  373,  374,  376, 
377,  387,  503;  in  New  Jersey,  401,  402, 

404,  502,  503;  in  Georgia,  419,  507;  in 
Rhode    Island,   432,    435;    in    Penn- 
sylvania and  Delaware,  442,  447,  449, 
503,  515,  517;  in  Virginia,  490-499;  in 
New  Hampshire,  499,  516 ;  in  Massa- 
chusetts, 500, 515 ;  in  Connecticut,  501, 
513;    in  New  York,  502;    in  North 
Carolina,  504 ;  in  South  Carolina,  505, 
517;  in  the  United  States,  507,  509; 
in  Vermont,  517;   objections  to,  522; 
"incomplete,"  522;  exemption  from 
taxes,  523;   "unchristian,"  624;    re- 


INDEX 


539 


ligion  not  in  phrase  but  in  life,  525; 
the  most  Christian  attitude,  526 ;  pre- 

•  cepts  of  Christ,  527. 

"Remonstrance,"  Antinomian,  192. 

Renaissance,  20,  43. 

Reusselaerwyck,  306,  309. 

Reyner,  Rev.  John,  143. 

RHODE  ISLAND,  5,  71,  373;  settlement, 
4Ji ;  Roger  Williams,  421-429 ;  Aquid- 
neck  and  island  settlement,  429; 
democracy  and  liberty,  430;  Provi- 
dence Plantation  and  Warwick  char- 
ter, 430;  code  of  laws,  431;  full 
liberty,  432;  disorders  and  rejection 
by  New  England  Confederacy,  432; 
movement  to  unite  the  settlements, 
433;  charter  of  1662  and  the  "lively 
experiment,"  435;  full  liberty,  436; 
Quakers,  437 ;  pseudo  legislation 
against  Romanists,  438;  disorders 
again,  439;  period  of  the  Revolution, 
482,  500. 

Richmond  County  (N.Y.),  338,  340. 

Roan,  Rev.  John,  103. 

Robinson,  Rev.  John,  134,  136,  142, 143, 
156. 

Robinson,  William  (Presbyterian),  103. 

Robinson,  William  (Quaker),  90,  217. 

Rodgers,  Rev.  John,  104. 

Rogerines,  265,  268. 

Rogers,  John,  265. 

Rogers,  Rev.  Ezekiel,  165. 

Roman  Catholics,  in  Virginia,  85,  108; 
in  Carolina,  124;  in  Massachusetts, 
177,  233 ;  in  Connecticut,  276 ;  in  New 
Hampshire,  294,  500;  in  New  York, 
335,  336,  337,  502;  in  Maryland,  244, 
369,  370,  374,  397,  398,  457,  504;  in 
New  Jersey,  405;  in  Georgia,  420;  in 
Rhode  Island,  437;  in  Pennsylvania, 
444,  445,  450 ;  in  Quebec,  490. 

Rome,  heathen,  30. 

Rome,  prestige  of  Christian,  36. 

Rotation  in  office,  165. 

Rudolph,  Emperor,  41. 

Russell,  Ensign,  336. 

Russia,  10. 

Rustdorp  (L!.),318. 

Rye(N.Y.),338. 

Sabbath  laws,  255,  257,  519. 
Salem  (Mass.),  157, 182,  237,  243. 
Salisbury,  Bishop  of,  330. 
Saltonstall,  Sir  Richard,  68,  162,  206. 
Sandy  Beach  (N.H.),299. 


Sandys,  Sir  Edwin,  134. 

Savages,  conversion  of,  74. 

Say  and  Sele,  Lord,  169,  220,  239. 

Saybrook  (Conn.),  239,  255,  272. 

Saybrook  synod,  257. 

Schenectady  (N.Y.),  Church  of,  349. 

Schoolmen,  45. 

Schools  in  Virginia,  97. 

Scotland,  Church  of,  56,  417. 

Scottow's  Narrative,  154,  429. 

Scrooby,  133. 

Seabury,  Bishop,  480. 

Seeker,  Archbishop,  465,  466,  467,  477. 

Seekonk,  Baptists  at,  204. 

Selyns,  Domine,  315. 

"Separates,"  278. 

Separatists,  4, 138. 

Servetus,  51. 

"  Seven  Pillars,"  282. 

Seven  Years'  War,  450. 

Sewall,  Samuel,  209  note,  230,  231,  232, 
233. 

Seymour,  Attorney-General,  479  note. 

Sharp,  Governor,  392,  473. 

Shaw,  Rev.  Mr.,  278. 

Shelton,  99. 

Shepherd,  Thomas,  179, 194. 

Sherlock,  James,  296. 

Shute,  Rev.  Mr.,  508. 

Simple  Cooler  of  Aggawam  in  Amer- 
ica, 68, 172,  207. 

Skelton,  Rev.  Samuel,  153,  157, 184. 

Sloughter,  Governor,  337. 

Small  Treatise,  Winthrop's,  181. 

Smith,  Rev.  Ralph,  160,  183,  195. 

Smith,  Richard,  307. 

Smith,  William,  472,  476. 

Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Christian 
Knowledge,  391. 

Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gos- 
pel in  Foreign  Parts,  128,  129,  268, 
346,  347,  348,  355,  391,  408,  461,  463, 
465,  467,  477. 

Socinian  in  Pennsylvania,  445,  450. 

Sonmans,  410. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  See  The  Carolinas, 
period  of  the  Revolution,  505 ;  consti- 
tution of  1778  and  establishment  of 
Protestantism,  505 ;  unique  provisions, 
506 ;  full  liberty,  517. 

Southold  (L.I.),  271,  274,  284,  328. 

Spinoza,  7,  59. 

Spotswood,  Governor,  98,  99, 127, 129. 

Stamford  (Conn.),  285. 

Standish,  Myles,  138  note,  147. 


540 


INDEX 


Stanhope,  Lord,  8. 

St.  Ann's  Church  (Burlington,  N.J.)  ,409. 

St.  Louis,  43. 

St.  Mary's  Church  (Md.),  382. 

State  constitutions,  518-520. 

State  rights  in  religious  matters,  510. 

States-General  of  Holland,  302,  304,  310, 
315,  332. 

State  supremacy,  36,  48. 

Stevenson,  Marmaduke,  215,  217,  218. 

Stille',  quoted,  446,  450. 

Stone,  Captain,  180  note. 

Stone,  Governor,  375,  379. 

Story,  Judge,  quoted,  16,  19,  158. 

Stratford  (Conn.),  266,  268,  272. 

Stuart,  Rev.  John,  476. 

Stundists,  10. 

Stuyvesant,  Peter,  304,  306, 308, 312, 314, 
318,  320,  399,  459  note. 

Suffragan,  394,  463,  473. 

Swanzey,  228. 

Sweno,  42. 

Swift,  Dean,  463. 

Switzerland,  51,  66  note. 

Symond's  letter  to  Winthrop,  200. 

Synod,  of  Newtown,  191 ;  of  Cambridge, 
201;  of  Boston,  211,  254;  Second,  of 
Boston,  213;  of  Saybrook,  257;  fruit- 
less effort  for,  in  1725,  235,  475. 

Talbot,  Rev.  Mr.,  356,  416. 

Talcott,  Governor,  262,  269,  272. 

Tallman,  John,  345. 

Taxation  of  clergy,  44. 

Tax  for  Church  support,  in  Virginia, 
80  note,  108;  in  Carolina,  131;  in 
Massachusetts,  169,  170,  234;  in  Con- 
necticut, 248,  269,  270 ;  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, 294;  in  New  Netherland,  304, 
309,  310;  in  New  York,  326,  338;  in 
Maryland,  386,  394 ;  in  New  England, 
464,  471,  474,  484,  491,  493,  494,  500, 
501,  504,  507,  513-515,  517. 

Tesschenmacker,  331. 

Test  and  Corporation  Act,  8. 

Tests,  religious,  35,  36 ;  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, 299;  in  New  York,  337,  356, 
358;  in  Pennsylvania,  445,  447-449; 
in  Delaware,  452 ;  in  New  Jersey,  503, 
515,  519. 

"Theocracy,"  Cotton's  definition,  169. 

Theodosius  the  Great,  30,  31. 

Thomson,  Rev.  William,  86. 

Throgmorton,  308. 

Tilton,  Mr.,  309. 


Tithes,  38,  56.    See  Tax  for  Support  of 

Church. 
Toleration  Act  of  Maryland'.  376,  379, 

380. 
Toleration  Act  of  William  III.,  61,  62, 

66;    in   Virginia,   98,    107;    in   New 

Hampshire,  299;   in  New  York,  337, 

352;    in  Maryland,   377,   387-390;    in 

New  Jersey,  404;    in   Pennsylvania, 

445. 
Toleration,  not  liberty,  7,  8,  492;  view 

of,  in  early  New  England,  68. 
Toryism  of    Anglican  clergy,  476-478, 

484. 
Town  Church  establishment,  298,  500, 

515. 

Townsend,  Henry,  317,  319. 
Townsend,  John,  319. 
Tryon,  Governor,  354. 
Tyler,  Rev.  Mr.,  478. 
"  Tything-men,"  257. 

Unam  Sanctam,  Bull,  44. 

Underbill,  Captain,  190. 

Uniformity,  55;  Jefferson  on,  493;  Acts 
of,  in  England,  61;  in  Virginia,  80, 
82;  in  Carolina,  125;  in  Massachu- 
setts, 171,  176,  198,  202;  in  Maryland, 
374. 

Unitarians,  445,  514. 

United  States,  Constitution  of,  480,  507, 
509. 

Universalists,  513. 

Universities  closed  to  dissenters,  56. 

Urmston,  Rev.  Mr.,  129. 

Urquhart,  Rev.  Mr.,  347. 

Valentinian,  29,  31. 

Vane,  Sir  Harry,  60,  61, 190, 192. 

Van  Rensselaer,  Kiliaen,  305. 

Van  Rensselaer,  Rev.  Nicholas,  330. 

Van  Vleck,  333. 

Van  Vleck,  Paul,  344. 

Vedantic  philosophy,  21. 

VERMONT,  begins  with  restrictions  and 
makes  church  a  town  establishment, 
abolished  in  a  few  years,  517. 

Vesey,  Rev.  Mr.,  355,  416. 

Vestries,  in  Virginia,  87,  88,  494;  in 
New  York,  337,  341. 

Villiers,  134. 

VIRGINIA,  religious  motive,  74 ;  charter, 
74;  Church  of  England  established, 
75;  New  Life  of  Virginia,  75;  Good 
News  from  Virginia,  76;  religious 


INDEX 


541 


legislation,  80;  law  for  government 
of  th  '  Church,  85 ;  vestries,  85 ;  pat- 
ronago,  '^7 ;  A  Perfect  Description  of 
Virginia,  88 ;  Quakers,  90 ;  increased 
severity  after  Restoration,  92 ;  Berke- 
ley, 94;  schools  and  printing,  97; 
Mackemie,  97;  Toleration  Act,  98; 
church  census,  99;  persecution,  99; 
influx  of  sects,  100;  a  new  sect,  101; 
Roan  expelled,  104;  Presbyterians, 
104;  trial  of  Davies,  105;  disaffec- 
tion, 106 ;  act  against  Romanists,  108 ; 
"Two-Penny  Act,"  108;  persecution 
of  Baptists,  111 ;  contrast  with  Massa- 
chusetts, 114;  period  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, 483;  Bill  of  Rights,  491;  church 
tax,  493 ;  relics  of  establishment,  494 ; 
disestablishment  by  law,  495 ;  support 
of  religion,  495;  "Memorial  and  Re- 
monstrance," 497  ;  "  Declaratory  Act " 
establishing  Religious  Liberty,  497; 
Ordinance  of  1787,  499 ;  incorporation 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  511 ;  church 
glebes,  511,  512. 
Virginia's  Cure,  93,  458. 


Wadsworth,  Captain,  265. 

Waite,  Chief  Justice,  525. 

Wakeman,  Rev.  Mr.,  255. 

Walford,  Thomas,  149. 

Waller,  John,  112. 

"  Wardens  and  Vestry,"  339,  341. 

Ward,  Nathaniel,  68, 179. 

Wartburg,  the,  50. 

Washington,  George,  495. 

Washington,  Lawrence,  106. 

Watertown  (Mass.),  241. 

Webber,  William,  113. 

Webster,  Daniel,  525. 

Weeks,  Professor,  115. 

Wesley,  420. 

West  Chester  (N.Y.),  308,  338,  344. 

West  India  Company,  302,  303,  304,  305, 

306,  307,  309,  312,  313,  316,  320. 
Westminster  Confession,  57. 


Wethersfield  (Conn.),  241,  249;  Church 

of,  253. 
Whalley,  289. 
Wheelwright,  John,  191,  194,  290,  292 

note. 

Whitaker,  Rev.  Alexander,  76,  391. 
Whitefield,  100,  271,  359. 
White,  Father,  362,  369,  370,  373. 
White,  Rev.  Alexander,  109. 
White,  Rev.  Mr.,  83. 
Wickendam  (Baptist),  317. 
Wilberforce,  485. 
William  and  Mary,  61,  233,  329,  336,  383, 

384,  385,  386,  396,  405,  445. 
William  and  Mary  College,  460, 479  note. 
William  of  Orange,  46,  52,  60. 
Williams,  Roger,  4,  12, 181-188,  216,  244, 

259,  261,  365,  367,  423-429,  432,  435, 

447,  489,  526. 
Wills,  Rev.  Mr.,  254. 
Windsor  (Conn.),  241;  church  of,  253. 
Winslow,  Edward,  140,  142,  200,  424. 
Winslow,  Rev.  Mr.,  468. 
Winthrop,  John,  86,  151,  153,  161,  162- 

167,  172,  180,  181,  192,  193,  240,  281, 

367,  373,  424,  428. 

Winthrop,  Jr.,  John,  153,  217,  239,  261. 
"Winter  Privileges,"  279. 
Witherspoon,  John,  417. 
Wolcott,  Oliver,  513. 
Wonder-  Working  Providence  of  Zion's 

Saviour,  194, 196,  283,  433. 
Woodbridge  (N.J.),  Church  at,  416. 
Wyatt,  Sir  Francis,  79. 

Yale  College,  268. 
Yeardley,  Governor,  79. 
Yennicook,  285. 
Yeo,  Rev.  Mr.,  381. 
Yong,  Captain,  369. 
Yonkers  (N.Y.),338. 

Zinzendorf,  358. 
"  Zion,  Kingdom  of,"  65. 
Zurich,  51,  65. 
Zwinglius,  51, 


New  Testament   Handbooks 


EDITED  BY 

SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  Interpretation, 
University  of  Chicago 

Arrangements  are  made  for  the  following  volumes,  and  the  publishers 
will,  on  request,  send  notice  of  the  issue  of  each  volume  as  it  appears  and 
each  descriptive  circular  sent  out  later;  such  requests  for  information 
should  state  whether  address  is  permanent  or  not :  — 

The  History  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament 

Prof.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis, 
Union  Theological  Seminary.  [Now  ready. 

Professor  Vincent's  contributions  to  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  rank  him 
among  the  first  American  exegetes.  His  most  recent  publication  is  "  A  Critical 
and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Philemon" 
(International  Critical  Commentary},  which  was  preceded  by  a  "  Students' 
New  Testament  Handbook,"  "Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament,"  and 
others. 

The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament 

Prof.  HENRY  S.  NASH,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Cambridge  Divinity  School.  [Now  ready. 

Of  Professor  Nash's  "Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience,"  The  Outlook  said:  "  The 
results  of  Professor  Nash's  ripe  thought  are  presented  in  a  luminous,  compact, 
and  often  epigrammatic  style.  The  treatment  is  at  once  masterful  and  helpful, 
and  the  book  ought  to  be  a  quickening  influence  of  the  highest  kind;  it  surely 
will  establish  the  fame  of  its  author  as  a  profound  thinker,  one  from  whom  we 
have  a  right  to  expect  future  inspiration  of  a  kindred  sort." 

Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  B.  WISNER  BACON,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Yale  University.  [Now  ready. 

Professor  Bacon's  works  in  the  field  of  Old  Testament  criticism  include  "The 
Triple  Tradition  of  Exodus,"  and  "  The  Genesis  of  Genesis,"  a  study  of  the 
documentary  sources  of  the  books  of  Moses.  In  the  field  of  New  Testament 
study  he  has  published  a  number  of  brilliant  papers,  the  most  recent  of  which  is 
"The  Autobiography  of  Jesus,"  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology. 

The  History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Palestine 

Prof.  SHAILER  MATHEWS,  Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and 
Interpretation,  The  University  of  Chicago.  [Now  ready. 

The  Congregationalist  says  of  Prof.  Shailer  Mathews's  recent  work,  "  The  Social 
Teaching  of  Jesus "  :  "  Re-reading  deepens  the  impression  that  the  author  is 
scholarly,  devout,  awake  to  all  modern  thought,  and  yet  conservative  and  pre- 
eminently sane.  If,  after  reading  the  chapters  dealing  with  Jesus'  attitude 
toward  man,  society,  the  family,  the  state,  and  wealth,  the  reader  will  not  agree 
with  us  in  this  opinion,  we  greatly  err  as  prophets." 


The  Life  of  Paul 

Prof.  RUSH  RHEES,  President  of  the  University  of  Rochester. 

Professor  Rhees  is  well  known  from  his  series  of  "  Inductive  Lessons  "  contributed 
to  the  Sunday  School  Times.  His  "  Outline  of  the  Life  of  Paul,"  privately 
printed,  has  had  a  flattering  reception  from  New  Testament  scholars. 

The  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age 

Dr.  C.  W.  VOTAW,  Instructor  in  New  Testament  Literature,  The 
University  of  Chicago. 

Of  Dr.  Votaw's  "  Inductive  Study  of  the  Founding  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Modern 
Church,  Edinburgh,  says:  "No  fuller  analysis  of  the  later  books  of  the  New 
Testament  could  be  desired,  and  no  better  programme  could  be  offered  for  their 
study,  than  that  afforded  in  the  scheme  of  fifty  lessons  on  the  Founding  of  tht 
Christian  Church,  by  Clyde  W.  Votaw.  It  is  well  adapted  alike  for  practical 
and  more  scholarly  students  of  the  Bible." 

The  Teaching  of  Jesus 

Prof.  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale 
University.  [New  ready. 

Professor  Stevens's  volumes  upon  "  The  Johannine  Theology,"  "  The  Pauline  The- 
ology," as  well  as  his  recent  volume  on  "  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament," 
have  made  him  probably  the  most  prominent  writer  on  biblical  theology  in 
America.  His  new  volume  will  be  among  the  most  important  of  his  works. 

The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  E.  P.  GOULD,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation,  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.  \_Now  ready. 

Professor  Gould's  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (in  the  International  Criti' 
cal  Commentary}  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  (in  the  American  Com- 
mentary} are  critical  and  exegetical  attempts  to  supply  those  elements  which 
are  lacking  in  existing  works  of  the  same  general  aim  and  scope. 

The  History  of  Christian  Literature  until  Eusebius 

Prof.  J.  W.  PLATNER,  Professor  of  Early  Church  History,  Harvard 

University. 

Professor  Platner's  work  will  not  only  treat  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian 
writers,  but  will  also  treat  of  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  Canon. 

OTHERS  TO    FOLLOW 

"  An  excellent  series  of  scholarly,  yet  concise  and  inexpensive  New  Testament  hand- 
books."—  Christian  Advocate,  New  York. 

*'  These  books  are  remarkably  well  suited  in  language,  style,  and  price,  to  aL 
students  of  the  New  Testament."  —  The  Congregationalist,  Boston. 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book"  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 

Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


iD 


81! 


6  1971 


RB.CIR.    DEC  Is  75 


IN  STACKS        SEP  22  71 


REC'DLO    DEC -3 


JMi03'91JAA/  02  199! 


LD21A-50m-2,'71 
(P2001slO)476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


f  IN  STOCK* 


oUl» 


i 


